From: "Orrin Judd" <orrin@brothersjudd.zzn.com
Reply-To: orrin@brothersjudd.zzn.com
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 21:30:47 -0500
To: pundit@instapundit.com,
gillespie@reason.com, samizdata@cloister.dircon.co.uk
Cc: andrew@andrewsullivan.com,
jonahemail@aol.com,
virginia@dynamist.com
Subject: Libertarianism
Dear Fellas (and Lady) :
I'm very much interested in the argument that's brewing between the
libertarian crowd (Nick Gillespie and most of the warbloggers) and
cultural conservatism (with Mr.
Goldberg so far the unlikely early representative). ÝIt's a discussion
that is well worth having and I hope that it will blossom and continue.
Here's my two cents. ÝIn Mr. Gillespie's response to Mr. Goldberg, he suggests that libertarianism has replaced liberalism as the main threat to conservatism. ÝBut he also reveals libertarianisms fatal flaw--one it shares with liberalism--that it is based not on reality but on an idyllic view of Man. ÝAs he says : Ý
[L]ibertarians do believe devoutly in something.
They believe, writes Hayek, that 'to live and work successfully with others
requires more
than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires
an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues
which to one
are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different
ends. It is for this reason that to the liberal [libertarian] neither moral
nor religious
ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both
conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.'
-Really
Strange Bedfellows : My roll in the hay with John Walker (Nick Gillespie,
12/14/01, Reason)
This faith, that others will allow you to do your own thing, while you do yours, is touching in its naivete, but completely delusional in practice.
Classic conservatism is instead based on Thomas Hobbes's view of Man in the State of Nature, as a selfish, violent, acquisitive beast. ÝIt therefore posits that governments arise as a means of securing our own physical safety, from one another. ÝSome form of State is necessary to restrain our basest impulses, so each man sacrifices some of his own freedom in exchange for state imposed security from his fellow men. ÝThis scenario may be overly metaphorical, but it has the great advantage of at least being based on the human nature that we see before us every day.
Now, it is the very great (even singular) achievement of the Judeo-Christian West that we have managed to create a series of institutions--church, family, businesses, the Common Law, courts, etc.--which have collectively enabled us to internalize these restraints to a sufficient degree that we need less state authority than was once necessary to secure the peace. ÝOur monotheism gave birth to an absolute morality and our near universal acceptance of the tenets of Judaism or Christianity placed these moral precepts at the very core of our culture. ÝExternal authority then diminished in proportion to the internalization of these moral strictures (which are really the beliefs that cultural conservatism seeks to defend, mostly by conserving the institutions that inculcate them). Ý
But the very success of conservatism has created a culture which is so peaceful and so morally heterogeneous that it has become possible for rival ideologies to spring up which premise themselves on the belief that man is innately peaceful, egalitarian, co-operative, etc. ÝThus, Marxism (and the rest of modern liberalism) supposes that in the state of nature we all sat around sharing whatever was lying about peacefully, and that we long to return to such a blessed state. ÝThis belief, of course, ran aground as soon as those who have were given the opportunity to give to those who don't (from each according to his ability...). ÝThey refused; and the state was forced to take by main force. ÝFreedom disappeared and though equality was indeed imposed, it turned out to be an equality of squalor. ÝLooking about them and realizing that we in the West had remained relatively free and that, though the distribution of wealth was unequal, even our poor had more than them, the poor benighted souls upon whom this experiment was conducted eventually overthrew the utterly failed system.
Meanwhile, comes libertarianism,Ýwhich abjures morality, yet somehow expects Man without morals to behave in what is fundamentally a moral manner. ÝNo one can argue with the beauty of the idea that men might willingly allow each other to go their own ways, but neither can one look around and believe that such a world is possible, except in the imagination. ÝLike liberalism, libertarianism is utopian rather than realistic. ÝIt is all well and good for well-educated, middle and upper class, white males (the overwhelming majority of libertarians) to sit around and hypothesize about a world in which they are left free to enjoy their plenty, but what's in it for the have nots? ÝAnd since most of the planet is still have-nots, what do you think would happen to this little claque of rich white boys once they'd gotten rid of traditional morality and the other restrictive residue of Western culture? ÝYou've gotta be thinking of the white farmers in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) right now, don't you.
In fact, libertarianism is really just respectable anarchism and there's a uniform feature that one notes about societies that plunge into anarchy; the people pray for the restoration of order, any kind of order. ÝThis is why even we in the States originally welcomed the Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan. ÝEven totalitarianism was preferable to the chaos that reigned before they took control. ÝNo one believes in libertarianism where it actually prevails. ÝIt is really only a phenomenon of those societies where cultural conservatism has taken such firm hold that even people, like most libertarians, who deny the validity of Judeo-Christian morality, have nonetheless been shaped by it. Ý
Regards,
OJ
--------------------
Orrin C. Judd
Writer-in-Residence
www.brothersjudd.com
--------------------
RESPONSE : from Perry de Havilland at Samizdata
WEBSITES :
-Adam
Smith Institute
-American
Liberty : "Evolving beyond the moral and intellectual fraud of
politics."
-Anti-State
: an anarcho-capitalist publication
-AntiWar.com
-Ayn
Rand Institute
-Bryan
Caplan Homepage : A well-known libertarian/anarchist professor; hosts
the Museum of Communism and the Anarchist FAQ
-The Center
for Economic Personalism
-Center
for Libertarian Studies
-Conservative
and Libertarian Legal Scholarship: An Annotated Bibliography
-Critiques
of Libertarianism site
-Dead Economists
Society
-The
Daily Objectivist
-
Dictionary of Key Terms for a Free and Virtuous Society : Compiled by Stephen
Grabill (sgrabill@acton.org)
-Dynamist.com
: Blog (Virginia Postrel)
-For
Liberty : A general introduction to the ideas and politics of Libertarianism
-Free-Market.net
-Free Nation Foundation
- Critical Institutions
-Future of
Freedom Foundation
-The Hayek
Center for Interdisciplinary Research
-The Henry Hazlitt
Foundation
-History
of Economic Thought Website
-Ideas
on Liberty (formerly The Freeman)
-The
Independent Review
-Instapundit.com
: Blog (Glenn Reynolds)
-Institute of Economic
Affairs
-Institute For
Humane Studies
-Open Republic
Institute : Ireland's only source of policy analysis oriented towards
individual rights and open markets.
-The
Journal of Libertarian Studies
-laissez
faire books
-Laissez Faire
ÝCity Times
-Libertarian
Alliance
-The
Libertarian Enterprise (Published twice a month, TLE is a forum for
libertarian thought.)
-Libertarian
Nation Foundation : A libertarian think tank working toward attaining
a free nation by building visions of the institutions in that free nation
-Libertarian Party
-Libertarian
Party News Online
-LibertyStory.net
: Ideas, people & events in the history of liberty
-Libertarian
Thought : A web site on the politics of freedom and natural rights
-Liberty
Guide.com
-Liberty
Journal
-Liberty
Library of Constitutional Classics
-Library of Economics
and Liberty
-Lew Rockwell.com
-Mises Institute
-No Treason
: A Journal of Liberty
-The
Philadelphia Society
-The
Philosophy and Economics of Anarcho-Capitalism
-Reason
-Regulation
: devoted to analyzing the implications of government regulatory
policy and the effects on our public and private endeavors
-Samizdata
: Weblog
-The
School of Cooperative Individualism
-Strike
the Root
-Tech
Central Station (James K. Glassman)
-Total
Freedom : TOWARD A DIALECTICAL LIBERTARIANISM (Chris Matthew Sciabarra)
-WendyMcElroy.com
: A site for Individualist Feminism and Individualist Anarchism
-Revolution
: the place for libertarians to go for useful articles, helpful statistics,
and plain old encouragement
-ESSAY
:ÝA Critique of Libertarianism (James A. Hammerton)
-ESSAY
: "Why Libertarianism Is Mistaken" (Hugh LaFollette, In John Arthur
and William Shaw (eds) Justice and Economic Distribution, 1979, 194-206)
-ESSAY
: Libertarians, Conservatives, and the Religious Right (Joseph
L. Bast, January 2002, The Monthly Heartlander)
-ESSAY
: Freedom Kills : John Walker, Andrew Sullivan, and the libertarian threat.
(Jonah Goldberg, December 12, 2001, National Review)
-ESSAY
: Happy Birthday! Now Grow Up, Libertarians (Nick Schulz, Editor, Tech
Central Station, December 11, 2001
-ESSAY
: THE HEIRS OF AYN RAND HAS OBJECTIVISM GONE SUBJECTIVE? (SCOTT MCLEMEE,
September 1999, Lingua Franca)
-ESSAY
: The Nature of Law : Part IV: The Basis of Natural Law (Roderick
T. Long, Winter 1996-97 issue of Formulations)
-ESSAY
: In Defense of Moral Agents (Roy Halliday, Spring 2000 issue of Formulations)
-ESSAY
: The Libertarian Lobe : Libertarianism tells kids everything they want
to be told. (Jonah Goldberg, June 22, 2001, National Review)
-ESSAY
: The Origin Of Goldbergism : Goldbergism ? The Lowest (Terminal)
Stage of Conservatism, (Paul Gottfried, VDare)
-ESSAY
: Mugging Libertarians (Walter Olson, July 1997, Reason)
-ESSAY
: THE REPUBLICAN SPLINTERING : A preview of the San Diego zoo
(John B. Judis, August 19 & 26, 1996, New Republic)
-ESSAY
: Whose Body Politic? (Alan Wolfe, December 1, 1993, American
Prospect)
-ESSAY : Liberals and Ayn Rand (James Fallows, January 1975,
Atlantic Monthly)
-ESSAY
: The Biological Basis of Morality : Do we invent our moral absolutes
in order to make society workable? Or are these enduring principles expressed
to us by some transcendent or Godlike authority? Efforts to resolve
this conundrum have perplexed, sometimes inflamed, our best minds for centuries,
but the natural sciences are telling us more and more about the choices
we make and our reasons for making them (Edward O. Wilson, April 1998,
Atlantic Monthly)
-ESSAY
: The Ex-Cons : Right-Wing Thinkers Go Left! (Corey Robin, February
2001, Lingua Franca)
-ARCHIVES
: "libertarianism" (Mag Portal)
-ARCHIVES
: libertarianism (Find Articles)
-INTERVIEW
: Defending the Undefendable: Walter Block, Twenty Years Later an interview
by Alberto Mingardi (Zola Times)
-REVIEW
: of What It Means to Be a Libertarian A Personal Interpretation. By Charles
Murray (James P. Pinkerton, NY Times Book Review)Ý
-REVIEW : of What It Means to Be a Libertarian A
Personal Interpretation. By Charles Murray (CHRISTOPHER LEHMANN-HAUPT,
NY Times)
http://search.nytimes.com/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1008386534&view=book-full&docrank=3&numhitsfound=53&query=libertarian&query_rule=%28$query%29&docid=1819&docdb=bookrev-arch&dbname=booknews-cur&dbname=booknews-arch&dbname=bookrev-cur&dbname=bookrev-arch&numresults=10&operator=AND&TemplateName=doc.tmpl&setCookie=1
-REVIEW
: of Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture
of High-Tech, by Paulina Borsook (MICHIKO KAKUTANI, NY Times)
-REVIEW
: of Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture
of High-Tech, by Paulina Borsook (Brian Doherty, Reason)
JONAH GOLDBERG :
-ARCHIVES
: Goldberg File (National Review)
-ARCHIVES
: Townhall.com: Conservative Columnists: Jonah Goldberg
-ARCHIVES
: Jonah Goldberg (Jewish World Review)
-ESSAY
: Patience, Andrew, Patience : The Case for Temperamental Conservatism.
(Jonah Goldberg, December 17, 2001, National Review)
-ESSAY
: Freedom Kills : John Walker, Andrew Sullivan, and the libertarian threat.
(Jonah Goldberg, December 12, 2001, National Review)
-ESSAY
: The Libertarian Lobe : Libertarianism tells kids everything they want
to be told. (Jonah Goldberg, June 22, 2001, National Review)
-ESSAY
: Why Can Gadflies Only Flit Left? (jonah Goldberg, American Enterprise
Institute)
-REVIEW
: of A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue, by Wendy Shalit
(Jonah Goldberg, Reason)
-ESSAY
: NR Online Launches Airstrikes : Lewrockwell.com targeted in missile
barrage. Tompaine.com and Salon.com victims of collateral damage. (Derek
Copold, March 11, 2001, Houston Review)
-ESSAY
: The Origin Of Goldbergism : Goldbergism ? The Lowest (Terminal)
Stage of Conservatism, (Paul Gottfried, VDare)
-ESSAY
: On Jonah Goldbergís Youthful Phase. (N. Stephan Kinsella, LewRockwell.com)
-ESSAY
: Jonah Goldberg and the Libertarian Axiom on Non-Aggression. (Walter
Block, LewRockwell.com)
NICK GILLESPIE :
-ARCHIVES
: Nick Gillespie (Reason Magazine)
-REVIEW
: of Philip D. Harveyís engaging new memoir, ÝThe Government vs.
Erotica: The Siege of Adam & Eve (Nick Gillespie, Reason)
-ESSAY
: The Age of 'Reason' (Cynthia Cotts, November 2001, Village Voice)
ROBERT NOZICK (1939-) :
ROBERT NOZICK (1939-2002) :
-OBIT
: Philosopher Nozick dies at 63 : University professor was major intellectual
figure of 20th century (Ken Gewertz, 1/23/02, Harvard Gazette)
-OBIT
: Professor Robert Nozick (Daily Telegraph, 28/01/2002)
-OBIT
: Robert Nozick, 63; Harvard Political Philosopher Pushed 'Minimal State'
(ELAINE WOO, 1/26/02, LA TIMES)
-Professor
Robert Nozick (Harvard University) nozick@fas.harvard.edu
-Robert
Nozick (1939 - ) (LibertyGuide.com)
-ESSAY
: Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism? (Robert Nozick, January 1998,
Cato Online)
-ESSAY
: Intellectuals, capitalism, and the schools (Robert Nozick, july?august
1998, civnet journal)
-ONLINE
TEXT : INVARIANCES : The Structure of the Objective World (ROBERT NOZICK,
Harvard University Press)
-INTERVIEW
: Interview with Rober Nozick (laissez faire books, November
19, 2001)
-ARTICLE
: Robert Nozick Named University Professor (Alvin Powell, October 01,
1998, Harvard University Gazette)
-Criticisms
of Robert Nozick and "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" : Part of the "Critiques
of Libertarianism" site.
-ESSAY
: Nozick v. The State (James Ostrowski, January 28, 2002, Mises Institute)
-ESSAY
: ROBERT NOZICK: AGAINST DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE (R.J. Kilcullen,
Teaching Materials on the History of Political Thought)
-ESSAY
: ROBERT NOZICK, ANARCHY STATE & UTOPIA (R.J. Kilcullen,
Teaching Materials on the History of Political Thought)
-ESSAY
: Robert Nozick, Libertarianism, And Utopia (Jonathan Wolff ,
Part of the "Critiques of Libertarianism" site)
-OUTLINE
: NOZICK : Political and Social Philosophy (R. N. Johnson)
-ARCHIVES
: The New York Review of Books: Robert Nozick
-ARCHIVES
: Authors & Articles > Robert Nozick (Ploughshares)
-ARCHIVES
: "robert nozick" (Find Articles)
-REVIEW
: of Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Robert De Fremery, Land & Liberty)
-REVIEW
: of Invariances: The Structure of the Objective World (Nicholas Fearn,
New Statesman)
-Professor
Robert Nozick (Harvard University) nozick@fas.harvard.edu
-Robert
Nozick (1939 - ) (LibertyGuide.com)
-ESSAY
: Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism? (Robert Nozick, January 1998,
Cato Online)
MURRAY N. ROTHBARD (1926-1995) :
-Murray N. Rothbard Bibliography Ý
http://www.mises.org/mnrbib.asp
-Murray N. Rothbard Library and Resources (LewRockwell.com)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard-lib.html
-Murray Rothbard (1926 - 1995)(Revolution)
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/by_name/R/MurrayRothbard.html
-ESSAY : The Mysterious Fed (Murray N. Rothbard,
THE FREE MARKET, October 1991)
http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/rothbard.html
-ESSAY : MOZART WAS A RED : A Morality Play in one
Act (Murray N. Rothbard)
http://home.att.net/~Storytellers/mozart.html
-ETEXT : Making Economic Sense by Murray N. Rothbard
(Mises.org)
http://www.mises.org/econsense/econsense.asp
-PROFILE : Murray N. Rothbard: A Legacy of Liberty
(Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., Mises.org)
http://www.mises.org/mnr.asp
-PROFILE : Murray N. Rothbard : Living a Life of
Principle (Walter Block, Mises.org)
http://www.mises.org/blockonmnr.asp
-PROFILE : Murray N. Rothbard: Mr. Libertarian (Wendy
McElroy)
http://www.zetetics.com/mac/rockwell/mcelroy000706.html
-PROFILE : The life and times of Murray N.
Rothbard, who showed why private individuals can do just
about everything that needs to be done (Jim Powell, LibertyStory.net)
http://www.libertystory.net/LSTHINKROTHBARDLIFE.htm
-ESSAY : Murray Rothbard (1926-1995) Ý(Roger W.
Garrison, Auburn University)
http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/e6rothbard.htm
-OBIT : Murray Rothbard 1926-1995 : Murray Newton
Rothbard, eminent economist, historian, philosopher, and former Libertarian
Party official, died in New York City of cardiac arrest on Jan. 7, 1995
(Libertarian Party News)
http://www.lp.org/lpn/9502-Rothbard.html
-OBIT : Murray Rothbard, R. I. P. (Roderick T. Long,
Spring 1995, Formulations)
http://www.ping.be/novacivitas/rothbard.html
-ESSAY : Rothbard Versus Rothbard: A False Dilemma
(Joseph R. Stromberg, Spintech: February 12, 2000)
http://www.spintechmag.com/0002/js0200.htm
-ESSAY : Children's Rights versus Murray Rothbard's
The Ethics of Liberty (John Walker)
http://www.l4l.org/library/chilroth.html
-ESSAY : Is Objectivism a Cult? Part 2: Rothbard
Unmasked (Jim Peron, The Laissez Faire City Times, July 10, 2000)
http://zolatimes.com/V4.28/obj_cult2.html
-ESSAY : Murray N. Rothbard on States, War, and
Peace: Part I : A VIRTUAL WRITING MACHINE (Joseph R. Stromberg, June 12,
2000, AntiWar)
http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s061200.html
-ESSAY
: Alan Greenspan versus Murray Rothbard (David W. Tice, March 10, 1999,
Prudent Bear)
-REVIEW
: of Making Economic Sense by Murray N. Rothbard (Richard M. Ebeling,
Freedom Daily)
DAVID BOAZ :
-David Boaz, Executive Vice President (Cato Institute)dboaz@cato.org
http://www.cato.org/people/boaz.html
-NORML : Working to Reform Marijuana Laws (Board
of Directors)
http://www.norml.org/about/bio_davidboaz.shtml
-Liberty Magazine (contributing editor)
http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/
-BOOK SITE : Libertarianism : A Primer
http://www.libertarianism.org/
-BOOKNOTES : Author: David Boaz Title: Libertarianism:
A Primer Air Date: January 26, 1997 (C-SPAN)
http://www.c-span.org/mmedia/booknote/lambbook/transcripts/50396.htm
-ESSAY : individuals do not emerge from community,
argues David Boaz, community emerges from individuals (civnet journal,
october - december 1997)
http://www.civnet.org/journal/issue4/cfdboaz.htm
-INTERVIEW : The Nine Commandments of Libertarianism:
an Interview with David Boaz (Alberto Mingardi, Laissez Faire Times)
http://zolatimes.com/V3.35/boaz.html
-ARCHIVES : David Boaz (Independent Gay Forum)
http://www.indegayforum.org/bios/boaz.html
-ARCHIVES : David Boaz (Think Tank, PBS)
http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/bio_1202.html
-DAILY HERO : David Boaz (Daily Objectivist)
http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Heroes/DavidBoaz.asp
-REVIEW : of The Libertarian Reader: Classic and
Contemporary Writings From Lao-Tzu to Milton Friedman edited by David
Boaz (William H. Peterson, Ideas on Liberty)
http://www.fee.org/iol/1997/july%2097/books3.html
-REVIEW : of Libertarianism : A Primer (Robert Bidinotto,
IOS Journal)
http://ios.org/pubs/Review5.asp
-REVIEW : of The Libertarian Reader (HPPUB)
http://www.hppub.com/books/bboaz.htm
-REVIEW : of LIBERTARIANISM - A PRIMER by David
Boaz (George L. O'Brien)
http://www.daft.com/~rab/liberty/misc/mbb-review.html
RONALD DWORKIN :
-REVIEW
: of Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality by Ronald Dworkin
(Garrett Epps, American Prospect)
-REVIEW
: of Sovereign Virtue The Theory and Practice of Equality, by Ronald
Dworkin (Richard A. Epstein, Reason)
> From: Samizdata <samizdata@cloister.dircon.co.uk>
> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 05:19:40 +0000
> To: Orrin Judd <orrin@brothersjudd.zzn.com>
> Subject: Re: Goldberg Vs. Gillespie
>I'm very much interested in the argument that's brewing between the
>libertarian crowd (Nick Gillespie and most of the warbloggers) and
>cultural conservatism (with Mr. Goldberg so far the unlikely early
>representative). It's a discussion that is well worth having
and I hope
>that it will blossom and continue.
>
>Here's my two cents. In Mr. Gillespie's response to Mr. Goldberg,
he
>suggests that libertarianism has replaced liberalism as the main threat
>to conservatism. But he also reveals libertarianisms fatal flaw--one
it
>shares with liberalism--that it is based not on reality but on an
idyllic
>view of Man.
(snip)
>This faith, that others will allow you to do your own thing, while
you do
>yours, is touching in its naivete, but completely delusional in
>practice.
That is false because that is certainly not what most libertarians believe. In fact, one of the reasons most libertarians are so strongly supportive of an armed civilian population is that they think quite the contrary. It is not just government libertarians wish to be armed against.
>Classic conservatism is instead based on Thomas Hobbes's view of Man
in the
>State of Nature, as a selfish, violent, acquisitive beast. It
therefore posits that >governments arise as a means of securing our own
physical safety, from one another.
>Some form of State is necessary to restrain our basest impulses, so
each man >sacrifices some of his own freedom in exchange for state imposed
security from his >fellow men.
> This scenario may be overly metaphorical, but it has the great advantage
of
>at least being based on the human nature that we see before us every
day.
Sure, that's ol' Hobbes, whom I always did think was nasty, brutish and short. That is fine and dandy but it is also pretty much a caricature of what humans are really like. They are indeed violent at times, but few libertarians are pacifists or willing to turn the other cheek to the violence of others. As for selfish and acquisitive, very few libertarians would disagree with you. However we do not see that as a vice, for it is from these two qualities that the most important drive of all comes: self interest. Societies are not the product of our will and reason, but rather of evolutionary processes that work to maximize self interest. Similarly morality that works survives, but a utilitarian justificationism is not enough (or even possible really) if a dogmatic irrationalism is not to poison a society.
>Now, it is the very great (even singular) achievement of the Judeo-Christian
>West that we have managed to create a series of institutions--church,
family, >businesses, the Common Law, courts,etc.--which have collectively
enabled us to >internalize these restraints to a sufficient degree that
we need less state authority >than was once necessary to secure the peace.
Our monotheism gave birth to an >absolute morality and our near universal
acceptance of the tenets of Judaism or
>Christianity placed these moral precepts at the very core of our culture.
External >authority then diminished in proportion to the internalization
of these moral >strictures (which are really the beliefs that cultural
conservatism seeks to defend, >mostly by conserving the institutions that
inculcate them).
Many libertarians are indeed also Christians or Jews. Certainly the Libertarian Alliance in Britain, of which I am a member, contains many of both. It also contains Muslims, Hindus, Atheists and Agnostics. Many are admirers of Aquinas, though mostly because of his Aristotelean core, rather than his Christianity. Most libertarians I know are also great admirers of many aspects of western culture. It is a grave fallacy many make when attempting to critique libertarianism to fail to understands that the desire of social, rather than state, solutions, lies at the heart of practical classical liberal (libertarian) word views, not some strange society of isolated individuals relying on good will. We believe in charity, which is the product of morality, rather than state aid, which is the product of theft.
>But the very success of conservatism has created a culture which is
so
>peaceful and so morally heterogeneous that it has become possible
for
>rival ideologies to spring up which premise themselves on the belief
that
>man is innately peaceful, egalitarian, co-operative, etc. Thus,
>Marxism (and the rest of modern liberalism) ...
I see you subscribe to the Chomsky use of the term liberal so popular in North America. I prefer the term socialist because I am a liberal in the classical sense of the word.
>...supposes that in the state of nature we all sat around sharing whatever
was lying >about peacefully, and that we long to return to such a blessed
state. This
>belief, of course, ran aground as soon as those who have were given
the
>opportunity to give to those who don't (from each according to his
>ability...). They refused; and the state was forced to take
by main force.
> Freedom disappeared and though equality was indeed imposed, it turned
out
>to be an equality of squalor. Looking about them and realizing
>that we in the West had remained relatively free and that, though
the
>distribution of wealth was unequal, even our poor had more than them,
>the poor benighted souls upon whom this experiment was conducted eventually
>overthrew the utterly failed system.
>
>Meanwhile, comes libertarianism, which abjures morality, yet somehow
expects
>Man without morals to behave in what is fundamentally a moral manner.
No one can >argue with the beauty of the idea that men might willingly
allow each other to go >their own ways, but neither can one look around
and believe that such a world is >possible, except in the imagination.
Except that is not what any libertarians think. Morals can only be valid if they are based upon objective reality, but if they are, they cannot be ignored. The morality of fiercely defending several property and the morality (and self-evident utility) of helping others to do the same absolutely permeates modern libertarian ideas. I suggest you read Rothbard's 'The Ethics of Liberty' or several of Popper's works if you think the essence of libertarianism is not objective morality. Libertarianism is ALL about morality. Conservatism/Socialism are merely about utility, and using force to achieve ends collectively chosen ends: morality does not enter into it.
>Like liberalism, libertarianism is utopian rather than realistic. It is all well and >good for well-educated, middle and upper class, white males (the overwhelming >majority of libertarians) to sit around and hypothesize about a world in which they >are left free to enjoy their plenty, but what's in it for the have nots?
Much of my time is spent in Central Europe and the Balkans, and I shall be forwarding your e-mail to my good friends at the Czech Liberalni Institue and to some of my Bosnian and Croatian libertarian confreres. Please do not take it as an insult when I tell you much laughter will result when they read that last section. To say you have a bizarre view of us is putting it mildly. You need to mix in wider circles methinks.
>And since most of the planet is still have-nots, what do you think
would happen to >this little claque of rich white boys once they'd gotten
rid of traditional
>morality and the other restrictive residue of Western culture?
You've gotta
>be thinking of the white farmers in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) right now,
don't you.
Much of traditional morality has an objective basis and what on earth makes you think that Libertarians want to destroy it all?
>In fact, libertarianism is really just respectable anarchism and there's
a
>uniform feature that one notes about societies that plunge into anarchy;
the people >pray for the restoration of order, any kind of order.
Certainly many libertarians regard anarchy as 'an ideal but unachievable state' (to quote a speaker at a Libertarian Alliance meeting a few weeks ago). Most however are what we libertarians called minarchists: i.e. they are classical liberals.
> This is why even we in the States originally welcomed the Taliban's
>rise to power in Afghanistan. Even totalitarianism was preferable
to the
>chaos that reigned before they took control. No one believes
in
>libertarianism where it actually prevails. It is really only
a phenomenon
>of those societies where cultural conservatism has taken such firm
>hold that even people, like most libertarians, who deny the validity
of
>Judeo-Christian morality, have nonetheless been shaped by it.
Judeo-Christian morality meaning what? Explain to me what useful aspects of Judeo-Christian morality it is that you think libertarians are trying to jettison unwisely as it is hard for me to really know what you mean. I find much of what you are saying bears little resemblance to actual common libertarian views, though of course we are all hyphenated-libertarians. Certainly libertarians reject irrational restrictions on their behaviour which are imposed by force. Yet we are also steeped in the cultures from which we come from and there is nothing contradictory about that. They way you seem to be representing us I would expect to see naked libertarians walking about all the time. Yet I have never seen that. A libertarian may think it is unreasonable to imprison a person for walking naked down a street but that does not mean he want to do so himself. A libertarian will reject forcing a woman to wear a burqa, yet surely she has the right to do so if she wishes to allow social pressures for that to control her actions. Will American conservatives stop her on the street and remove it at gunpoint if she refuses? The difference is social pressure vs the violence of law. Less government does not lead to chaos if culture is allowed to fulfil its proper role. Certainly during my time in the Balkans 1992-1996, culture, not state, was the glue that held society together. Although Croatian identity is inextricably linked with a Catholic identity, it was really only in a cultural sense as Croatia and Herzegovina are in reality profoundly secular societies.
You seem to be confusing us with some sort of nihilistic political biker gang. It just ain't so. Your arguments are coherent but are pointed at an empty part on the political landscape unoccupied by anyone I am familiar with.
Perry de Havilland ...- (via Samizdata)
--
_____________________
Visit Libertarian Samizdata if you dare at: http://samizdata.blogspot.com/
and discover that Bruce Willis is a wimp, why the King of Jordan is praiseworthy,
how to survive a nuclear, chemical or biological attack and the way to
convince people on the 'left' that libertarians are not the enemy.
From: "Orrin Judd" <orrin_judd@gdt1.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 07:00:00 -0500
Thank you very much for your response; is it okay if I post it here (www.brothersjudd.com)?
* I will have to read up on moralistic libertarianism, which does not appear to be the variant that most American Libertarians are espousing. It appears to offer an easy out. because it allows you to believe in traditional morality (Judeo-Christianity) precisely because it is traditional, has evolved. I'd not realized that there was such a heavy reliance on evolutionary psychology in some Libertarian thought. It remains unclear to me how morality would arise or be maintained in the absence of our religious teachings, but it's certainly a significant step up from the kind of extreme individualism that characterizes much of the libertarianism you find online. Unfortunately, from what I find online (which may well be skewed) it would appear that Rothbard is in decline among libertarians generally.
* Likewise, your embrace of social solutions would alleviate many of my concerns. I think you would have to acknowledge that there is, at least among some (many) libertarians, such hostility to religion that they tend to reflexively denigrate the very religious institutions that have provided such social assistance and will again in the future, if we are successful in reducing government.
* I was using liberal in the modern American sense, which as you point out is really just a form of statism. Conservatives here often write plaintively about the appropriation of the classic term Liberal by the Left, but it seems futile to fight about that at this late date. Since at least the 1950s and Russell Kirk's seminal book The Conservative Mind, what was once Liberalism has become Conservatism here in the States. Of course, we find it appalling that the Tories are called the Conservative Party, since with the exception of Margaret Thatcher, we would consider them, with their failure to oppose the EU and National Health and other forms of big government, to be a party of the Left.
* I hope I didn't seem to be dismissing Man's selfishness out of hand. We conservatives too believe it to be a useful characteristic and the driving factor in the success of capitalism. I merely meant to note that this selfishness is so powerful that it has to be restrained, either by government or morality or both, else we would all be at each others' throats.
* I'd defend, to the death, your right to walk around your house naked, but at the point where you want to wander around my children's playground naked, I'd either stop you myself or have the police remove you. And, as you suggest, I'd hope that social reproval and pressure would suffice to get you to dress before you left the house.
* It sounds like many of our disagreements actually arise from the surprising
(to me, at least) differences in our cultures. Britain (I assume
you are British?)
does not appear to have a serious conservative opposition anymore,
and your kind of libertarianism (classical Liberalism) is a critique of
both Labour and the accomodationist Tories. But, here in America,
this critique pretty much defines the Republican Party--minimal government,
free market capitalism, personal liberty, traditional morality, strong
social institutions. On the other hand, that doesn't leave much room
for American libertarianism, so it actually tends to end up opposing even
morality and non-governmental institutions as unfairly coercive.
At any rate, keep fighting the good fight, and thanks again for your
response,
OJ
** I will have to read up on moralistic libertarianism, which does not
appear to be the variant that most American Libertarians are
espousing. It appears to offer an easy out. because it allows
you to
believe in traditional morality (Judeo-Christianity) precisely
because it is traditional, has evolved.
--------------
I am really not sure which flavour of libertarianism you are referring to. Generally it is not society or morality that libertarians rail against but rather literal civil coercion, manifest most prominently in the modern state's endless smothering spew of regulations regarding every aspect of civil society.
--------------
** I'd not realized that there was such a heavy reliance on evolutionary
psychology in some Libertarian thought.
--------------
That is the essence of Hayek's views of society and it is hard to overstate his influence in most libertarian circles (and conservative circles too, of course).
--------------
** It remains unclear to me how morality would arise or be maintained in the absence of our religious teachings,
--------------
Libertarian morality is the consequence of a critically rational objective understanding of the nature of the world, but morality itself arose because it serves a social need. Moral societies prospered better than ones which did not develop (or acquire) the memes of a progressively more sophisticated objective moral basis for what we do.
Hence the hostility found in libertarian circles to subjective moral relativists like Chomsky or Marx, to name but two. Societies which are steeped in moral subjectivism are societies whose philosophies are based on subjective epistemological foundations, trapped in an endless spiral of philosophical infinite regression, seemly irrefutable yet meaningless solipsism and stunted by the subjective values that negate the very concept of truth.
To put it crudely, libertarians support morality because it works and it works because valid morality is objectively correct, which is why it evolved in the first place! Ultimately memes based on subjective fantasies tend not to come out on top in the long run.
--------------
** but it's certainly a significant step up from the kind of extreme
individualism that characterizes much of the libertarianism you find
online. Unfortunately, from what I find online (which may well be
skewed) it would appear that Rothbard is in decline among
libertarians generally.
--------------
With regard to 'on-line libertarianism', I would say objectivism (Ayn
Rand) is probably the largest single (though not majority) influence and
she was certainly an advocate of objective morality. But I think
you are quite incorrect that Rothbard or the other advocates of libertarianism
on an entirely moral basis are in retreat. Quite the contrary.
A key essence of libertarianism is an objective epistemological approach to knowledge. Certainly, I realise that many libertarians would be hard pressed to spell, let alone describe objective epistemology. Like all political/philosophical movements, some people, maybe even the majority, fall into supporting them via a purely deontological appeal to intuition... they believe something just because 'it seems right'. I do not expect to see thousands of members of the US Libertarian Party marching down the streets of Peoria waving copies of 'The Ethics of Liberty' any time soon. Yet regardless of the fact I doubt all the libertarians with NORML, and their ilk, are thinking in those terms, the libertarian theorists that one meets across the world, from New Zealand to Sweden, from the Czech Republic to Los Angeles, from Havana (yes) to London, do indeed quote Rothbard's and Rand's ethical ideas at each other. The fact is, it is a profoundly moral centred view of the world, not nihilism, that drives people from both the socialist left and conservative right, into the arms of libertarianism. Examine any of libertarianism perpetually re-branding variants and at their core, you will find an objective world view staring back at you from behind all the complex verbiage. For example, although I have not got around to reading Virginia Postrel's book 'The Future and its Enemies' yet, I detect a strong influence of Karl Popper's conjectural objectivity in her on-line remarks and in 'Dynamism' generally from what I have seen thus far (Dynamism is her form of hyphenated-libertarianism).
To obey a law simply because it is the law is not to take a moral view at all: that is just the acknowledgement that law is backed by force. To act morally as a Christian, one must have free will to not act morally or else we are just God's marionettes: God playing with himself. Christian morality says that we are given free will and thus must exercise that free will in an ethical manner. Libertarians are saying exactly the same thing. If I want to kill a person whom I detest but do not do so purely because I fear I will be caught and go to jail, that is not a moral action on my part, merely a utilitarian exercise in cost-benefit analysis. If I decline to murder them because I regard it as an immoral act, THAT is a moral choice. Yet by following that logic, libertarians are accused of being nihilists! By that logic, then so are Christians, regardless of their politics!
Like conservatives but unlike socialists, most libertarians are not willing to just reject 'traditional' morality just because it is traditional. Rather they understand that much of it is objectively true and evolved for precisely that reason. They will only wisely reject it if it is objectively untrue. However this means that unlike conservatives,whilst there may be a presumption of deference to tradition, there is no presumption of that deference being required by law in most cases.
Theorising on morality along these lines is pretty much what Hayek did and he is almost as influential with conservatives as with libertarians (Hayek did not regard himself as a conservative, however). Personally I subscribe to the 'falliblist' approach of Popper and Bartley, taking views of rational critical preferentialism (or to use Bartley's equally ungainly term 'Pancritical Rationalism') when evaluating not just morality but pretty much everything from aesthetics to quantum theory.
If you are interested in a painless introduction to Bartley, the lest well know of that trio, and who was most certainly a Christian, let me recommend the excellent Rafe Champion's remarks on here.
If I have some time, I will write you a 'quick and dirty guide to hyphenated-libertarianism' to demonstrate the wide variations of just what 'libertarian' really means in all its many-splendoured forms.
--------------
** Likewise, your embrace of social solutions would alleviate many of
my concerns. I think you would have to acknowledge that there is, at
least among some (many) libertarians, such hostility to religion that
they tend to reflexively denigrate the very religious institutions
that have provided such social assistance and will again in the
future, if we are successful in reducing government.
--------------
It is certainly true that many libertarians are atheists or agnostics, yet that is *far* from being a defining characteristic of libertarianism. Many are also Christians, Jews, Muslims (yes) and just about everything under the sun. To be honest, I have not met many libertarians who have a problem with faith based charities as they are in many ways the concretisation of the sort of social community alternatives to the dependency infantilism of state aid. I have a profoundly atheist libertarian chum here in London who works as a volunteer at a Servite Charity several hours a week and has nothing but admiration for this Catholic organisation, based as it is on non-coercion, freely given charity and genuine free association.
--------------
** I was using liberal in the modern American sense, which as you
point out is really just a form of statism. Conservatives here
often
write plaintively about the appropriation of the classic term Liberal
by the Left, but it seems futile to fight about that at this late
date. Since at least the 1950s and Russell Kirk's seminal book
The
Conservative Mind, what was once Liberalism has become Conservatism
here in the States. Of course, we find it appalling that the
Tories
are called the Conservative Party, since with the exception of
Margaret Thatcher, we would consider them, with their failure to
oppose the EU and National Health and other forms of big government,
to be a party of the Left.
--------------
I think the whole 'left' and 'right' thing, whilst it has some utility,
can also be profoundly misleading. To me, 'conservatism' is often 'statism-lite'
and thus differs from socialism only in degree rather than essence (no,
I am not equating the two, just putting them on the same continuum, as
I would with assault and murder).
--------------
** I hope I didn't seem to be dismissing Man's selfishness out of
hand. We conservatives too believe it to be a useful characteristic
and the driving factor in the success of capitalism. I merely
meant
to note that this selfishness is so powerful that it has to be
restrained, either by government or morality or both, else we would
all be at each others' throats.
--------------
My view is that self interest is actually best served by NOT being at each other's throats. And for those who insist on that anyway... well I never said I was a pacifist (which is itself just 'nihilism-without-balls'). Libertarians do not believe in chaos (even the anarchist flavour) but rather a more spontaneous order.
--------------
** I'd defend, to the death, your right to walk around your house
naked, but at the point where you want to wander around my children's
playground naked, I'd either stop you myself or have the police
remove you. And, as you suggest, I'd hope that social reproval and
pressure would suffice to get you to dress before you left the house.
--------------
Quite so. Libertarianism is about the liberty to make choices
and reap the consequences of those choices. Any 'libertarian' who acts
in a threatening way to other people (such as wandering around your children's
playground naked) is not just missing the point, he is about to discover
the 'consequences' half of that equation. No rational libertarian
would have a problem with that concept. Of course every philosophy
has its fair share of irrational adherent, even ones predicated upon critical
rationalism!
--------------
** It sounds like many of our disagreements actually arise from the
surprising (to me, at least) differences in our cultures. Britain
(I
assume you are British?) does not appear to have a serious conservative
opposition anymore, and your kind of libertarianism (classical Liberalism)
is a critique
of both Labour and the accomodationist Tories.
--------------
There is some truth to that. However I am the very embodiment of what Marx called a 'rootless cosmopolitan', though in reality I have very deep roots indeed... they just do not happen to stay in the convenient national boundaries so beloved of control centred states and socialists of both 'left' and 'right'. I am English on my fathers side and American on my mothers side, with extended family in Britain, Australia and North America. I have lived and worked in Britain, Ireland, Sweden, Netherlands, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, California, South Africa and Ghana. I am 40 something.
--------------
** But, here in America, this critique pretty much defines the Republican
Party--minimal government, free market capitalism, personal liberty, traditional
morality, strong social institutions.
--------------
You describe a party which must then have reduced the size of government during the Reagan and Bush(x2) administrations. The figures suggest otherwise alas. If you seriously think the Republican party is done more than just slow the rate at which Leviathan is putting on weight, methinks you are kidding yourself. Dick Armey et al (i.e. libertarian leaning conservatives) are not the party's mainstream by any stretch of the imagination. Just how many federal departments have actually closed down under the Republicans? To which party does the president who has agreed to corporate welfare payments to the structurally unsound parts of the US airline industry belong?
That said, I have often felt the US Libertarian Party is a mistake (Dale Amon, one of my co-editors on the Samizdata disagrees with me strongly on that. Although he lives in Belfast at the moment, he is American and an LP member). I think that if libertarians are going to participate in what I regard as a fundamentally illegitimate democratic process of proxy theft, they would be better off subverting the Republican Party into more libertarian ways (i.e. trying to take it back to America's radical Jeffersonian classical liberal roots).
For me, I take the view that the job of political libertarians is not
to drag the name of libertarianism through the mud of party politics in
order to achieve an improbable top down American 'perestroika' (i.e. what
the USLP is trying to do) but rather to work to make much of the state's
apparatus of coercion simply irrelevant.
Every time you pay cash or use the Internet in order to avoid taxes,
every time you break the speed limit on an empty road, every time you use
the Internet to download 'illegal munitions grade' encryption software,
every time you arbitrate a dispute rather than involve the state, every
time you open an off-shore bank account, or set up an off-shore company
or transfer money via a fei qian (or hawala) rather than via a regulated
banking system, every time you refuse to register a firearm, every time
you build on YOUR property out-of-code, every time you hire someone's freely
given labour 'off the books', you are making a statement that you will
simply not cooperate with laws that have no moral basis. By refusing to
blindly pay your taxes, register your weapons and accept the state as a
super-owner of your property (which is the heart of fascism, by the way)
you are refusing to finance and acquiesce in your own oppression.
THAT is the sort of thing I advocate libertarians doing. Thus the
most widespread unconsciously libertarian practice in the United States
is the humble, and untaxed, yard sale.
--------------
** On the other hand, that doesn't leave much room for American libertarianism, so it actually tends to end up opposing even morality and non-governmental institutions as unfairly coercive.
--------------
Which non-governmental institutions did you have in mind that have
attracted libertarian ire? And what sort of morality are you referring
to?
Perry de Havilland
(Reviewed:14-Dec-01)
Grade: (C)
