Why the time has come for Conservative Libertarianism

[VeritasLuxMea]

Taxation is not theft. Theft is the appropriation of something one has no right to. The Christian says that the State certainly has a right to demand the payment of taxes (“render unto Caesar…”)

Apparently we are Biblical inerrantists all of the sudden. Do we feel the same way about the chattel slavery that the Bible writers endorsed?

Regardless, we do have guidance in the form of God’s commandments - and that’s why I choose to focus on above all else. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Of course, just what it is that actually belongs to Caesar is a good question, too, and one that Jesus never actually answers, as you’ll notice.

May I take rightful possession of something by stealing it and then stamping my face on it as Caesar did? 'Tis a good moral lesson, yes?

because while the individual has a right to private property, it is not absolute and is subordinate to the moral laws of God. It is the libertarian who says that taxation is theft.

You are a good magician, my friend!

Show me how you have made “Thou shalt not steal” subordinate to the moral laws of God, when in fact, it is a moral law of God to begin with!

And it is he who says that “theft is wrong, except” because he is forced to admit that a small amount of taxation must be tolerated to fund a minimalist state.

No. The libertarian who has taken these principles (including God’s commandments) to their logical conclusions must ultimately realize that the State is illegitimate. Also illegitimate: any other group of people who functions in the same manner as the State (the mafia, street gangs and so on). Organized crime groups and government may have “elections”, they may be established by brute force, or they may have some kind of “divine right” claim to deal with, but these are irrelevant because, at their core, they must reject the value of human life.

And I will note once again: it is the common Christian who is the moral relativist. Abortionists take this same tactic. Such-and-such doesn’t “count” as murder.

The only difference is that the abortionist excuses abortion doctors, and the common Christian excuses the army, executioner, whoever.

I’m sorry to put it in such a manner but if the common Christian’s relativist morality wasn’t so sad to watch, it would be funny.

The drug war’s failure stems in part from the government’s schizophrenic attitude of attempting to tackle supply but not demand. Where demand for drugs can occasion serious punishment, such as in East Asian countries like Korea and Japan, the drug war is not nearly as ineffective as it is in the West.

…which is to ignore the brutal behavior of these people. I’m glad that people in some countries (Japan? Seriously? I don’t think so, but OK…) aren’t using that many mind-altering substances. I mourn for the murder and theft necessary to accomplish these goals, and the abdication of moral law.

As for the legalisation of drugs, while there is nothing intrinsically evil about taking a mind-altering substance, there are practical reasons involving the good of individuals and the common good for why the government might not wish marijuana, methamphetamine and heroin to be available over-the-counter at your nearest pharmacy.

Yes… the same reasons that I don’t use any of these drugs. It was not necessary for me to harm anyone so as to make that happen, thank the Lord.

Fun conversation.

 

[King_Lazy]

Show me how you have made “Thou shalt not steal” subordinate to the moral laws of God, when in fact, it is a moral law of God to begin with!

Taxation is not theft. It is an obligation to a rightful authority. The State gives you permission to live in its territory and it provides you with infrastructure, protects you from violence and your property from theft, and you have to pay tax for that privilege, much like you have to pay rent for the privilege of living in someone else’s property and having the landlord look after the plumbing and electric infrastructure.

No. The libertarian who has taken these principles (including God’s commandments) to their logical conclusions must ultimately realize that the State is illegitimate.

Indeed. That’s anarchism. But who but the State can protect you from other states? Nature abhors a vacuum. If you want to have things your own way, you’ll need the resources to create your own state that will be able to defend itself against other states, and to do so, you will have to tax your citizens.

Also illegitimate: any other group of people who functions in the same manner as the State (the mafia, street gangs and so on). Organized crime groups and government may have “elections”, they may be established by brute force, or they may have some kind of “divine right” claim to deal with, but these are irrelevant because, at their core, they must reject the value of human life.

The State’s legitimate role is to protect. Where it does not do this, it acts illegitimately.

The only difference is that the abortionist excuses abortion doctors, and the common Christian excuses the army, executioner, whoever.

The army is necessary as protection against outside aggression. The executioner is no longer necessary, as the State has other legitimate means for ensuring the safety of its citizens.

…which is to ignore the brutal behavior of these people. I’m glad that people in some countries (Japan? Seriously? I don’t think so, but OK…) aren’t using that many mind-altering substances. I mourn for the murder and theft necessary to accomplish these goals, and the abdication of moral law.

I agree that the Japanese don’t need mind-altering substances and have a vivid enough imagination as it is
What murder and theft?

Yes… the same reasons that I don’t use any of these drugs. It was not necessary for me to harm anyone so as to make that happen, thank the Lord.

And where does the State do harm in restricting the use of substances harmful to the individual and to society?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Taxation is not theft. It is an obligation to a rightful authority.

1. What is the source of this rightful authority? For you do recognize that if multiple such claims exist, we have a problem, right? So the question, in other words, if anyone shall have a claim to this authority, how shall it be proven?
2. How can one ever have the moral authority to break God’s commandments?

This is where your relative morality comes into play. I’ll admit that it’s not always easy to tell, for example, whether a killing should count as “legitimate” self-defense or not, so there is a small gray area that we have to deal with, no matter what. However, what you have done here is invent an entirely different class of human beings which has the moral authority to break God’s commandments and still be “just.” That’s a serious claim.

The State gives you permission to live in its territory and it provides you with infrastructure,

How did it come to own this territory?

protects you from violence and your property from theft, and you have to pay tax for that privilege,

However, they are threatening violence against our persons and property in order to do so. Thus, their intentions are irrelevant. Their means are what we are discussing, and their means are murder and theft.

much like you have to pay rent for the privilege of living in someone else’s property and having the landlord look after the plumbing and electric infrastructure.

Here we come to the crux of the matter. There is a small problem with regards to the landlord, but only because the State exists in the first place. But at least with regards to the landlord, we can trace ownership in some way to determine whether or not it is ‘legitimate.’ If the landlord has committed a certain amount of labor such that he may purchase a property through his own efforts, that’s one thing.

But as it regards the State, you seem to be implying that they own all land and we are merely renting it from them. So then, how did these people called the State come to a rightful claim of all of this land?

Indeed. That’s anarchism. But who but the State can protect you from other states? Nature abhors a vacuum. If you want to have things your own way, you’ll need the resources to create your own state that will be able to defend itself against other states, and to do so, you will have to tax your citizens.

See, relative morality again. Or specifically, consequentialism. You are arguing that the consequences* of an act are the basis of any judgement about the rightness of that act.

By contrast, I have God’s law that says to love my neighbor as myself, that I shall not kill, that I shall not steal and so on.

*= note further, that these consequences dwell solely in your imagination and not in any kind of scientific test. Not that it matters, though, because you are abrogating universalism.

The State’s legitimate role is to protect. Where it does not do this, it acts illegitimately.

I don’t necessarily believe this to be true, but I will be happy to assume this is true for the purposes of this discussion. Nevertheless, we have a bigger problem than intent to deal with here which is the moral nature of the act.

The army is necessary as protection against outside aggression. The executioner is no longer necessary, as the State has other legitimate means for ensuring the safety of its citizens.

Depends where you live, I guess! We don’t have executioners where I live, but Texas sure puts people to death.

What murder and theft?

These programs are funded via taxation, a vehicle which includes the underlying threat of imprisonment, or, if resisted, the punishment of death.

The jails are also funded by taxation The same taxation which imprisons more of its people per capita than any Western country, a substantial number of those are for drug offenses.

Deaths due to the drug war are substantial in the U.S., and how about Mexico?

The dealers, buyers and bystanders that are killed either directly by police, or by each other due to these policies (and the subsequent lack of supply), and more.

And where does the State do harm in restricting the use of substances harmful to the individual and to society?

See above.

I’ll say it again, this is a good chat. I’m quite enjoying it. Worthy opponent and all. Though I do tentatively believe that you are a moral relativist, I hope that claim is not offending you.

 

[King_Lazy]

1. What is the source of this rightful authority?

If you find yourself under the authority of a State, even if it arose in a bloody communist revolution, you are to obey its laws insofar as they do not compel you to do something immoral.

1. How can one ever have the moral authority to break God’s commandments?

Nobody does.

However, what you have done here is invent an entirely different class of human beings which has the moral authority to break God’s commandments and still be “just.” That’s a serious claim.

The State does not have moral authority to break God’s commandments. It cannot murder and it cannot steal. A good State does neither and permits neither.

How did it come to own this territory?

Historical reasons. It may have been born of violence or otherwise. Like I said, even if a Christian should live in a communist state such as China, he is duty-bound to follow its laws insofar as they do not compel him to do something that is immoral.

However, they are threatening violence against our persons and property in order to do so.

Where does a civilised state threaten violence against you and your property? Most modern states will impose financial penalties on those who refuse to submit to tax laws and may imprison those who gravely abuse them. Furthermore, the State typically attempts to limit the tax liability of those citizens who lack the ability to pay without having to endure excessive hardship.

Here we come to the crux of the matter. There is a small problem with regards to the landlord, but only because the State exists in the first place.

The State and state-like entities exist because it is natural, and individuals collectively demand authorities to look after the common interest and to protect them, so where no such authority exists, one will arise naturally or an external one will be imposed. My interest in is attempting to ensure that such an entity obeys the moral law and is not used as an instrument of oppression.

But as it regards the State, you seem to be implying that they own all land and we are merely renting it from them. So then, how did these people called the State come to a rightful claim of all of this land?

They do not own all the land, but they do control the right to reside on that land. A state may legitimately restrict that right to citizens of other states. It’s not your choice under whose authority you are born and whose authority you are to obey and to whom you should pay your taxes, but you are certainly born subject to an entity that you are to obey and to which you will sooner or later owe some sort of liability in taxes as a result of it having granted you the right to reside under its authority. The authority of the State came partly from imposition and partly from consent, as excessively oppressive states tend typically to be overthrown in time. We also see people sometimes protesting against the actions of states, and the State does quite often listen to avoid further rebellion and to safeguard its future.

You are arguing that the consequences* of an act are the basis of any judgement about the rightness of that act.

Consequentialism is neither here nor there. The State need not act immorally.

By contrast, I have God’s law that says to love my neighbor as myself, that I shall not kill, that I shall not steal and so on.

Well, that’s good. Neither should the State kill or steal, and a good state does not.

Nevertheless, we have a bigger problem than intent to deal with here which is the moral nature of the act.

The State, much like a human being, may use the means necessary to safeguard the lives of its citizens. The doctrine of double effect can apply here should those means include the taking of the lives of citizens of other states, for example.

We don’t have executioners where I live, but Texas sure puts people to death.

And I am by no means supporting Texas in doing so. Texas has the means to safeguard the safety of its citizens in other ways - for example, by imprisonment - and so putting criminals to death is most likely not the most legitimate way of protecting its citizens against violence.

These programs are funded via taxation, a vehicle which includes the underlying threat of imprisonment, or, if resisted, the punishment of death.

I don’t believe that tax evasion would result in the death penalty in Texas. We have tax-subsidised abortion in this country. Just because the State has a right to tax its citizens does not mean that the way it uses those resources is necessarily moral.

 

[King_Lazy]

The jails are also funded by taxation The same taxation which imprisons more of its people per capita than any Western country, a substantial number of those are for drug offenses.

I am not arguing for the three-strikes policy of the US. That’s a different matter entirely, and it does appear to me to be disproportionate. But I am arguing for the US government and my own government’s right to tax me, as a subject to its authority.

Deaths due to the drug war are substantial in the U.S., and how about Mexico?

The dealers, buyers and bystanders that are killed either directly by police, or by each other due to these policies (and the subsequent lack of supply), and more.

In drug-related violence, it typically isn’t the government doing the killing, and where it is done by the representatives of the State - the police - it is typically done in self-defence. The ineffectiveness of the drug war is an American-centric problem. On the other hand, we have the former USSR, where insufficient government intervention into curbing supply and demand has resulted in millions of people becoming addicted to heroin, many becoming infected with HIV and hepatitis and dying. That is an example of the government’s failure to intervene sufficiently to safeguard the common good of its citizens, none of whom benefit from having a significant proportion in their societies being addicted and infected with deadly diseases, and further being led into crime to fuel their addictions.

I’ll say it again, this is a good chat. I’m quite enjoying it. Worthy opponent and all. Though I do tentatively believe that you are a moral relativist, I hope that claim is not offending you.

I’m not offended at all. I merely have a different point of view.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Ok, you’ve confirmed it for me. That’s incorrect. The party’s opposition to the drug war has its foundations in the non-aggression principle, as do all of their positions. They are not now and have never been a one-issue party. It would be impossible to do, as the non-aggression principle has thousands of implications.

I have linked you to material. I will link it again. It practically borders on libel for you to persist in stating untruths when a significant amount of free information has been made readily available to you, and, by contrast, you do not even attempt to present evidence to the contrary.

If you had offered ANYTHING to counter this evidence other than mere assertion, I would not consider it libel. But, you persist in offering nothing whatsoever.

The wikipedia articles for some of the primary founders of the party are placed here for your perusal, and, as you can see once again, mentions of marijuana are slim to none. Have you ever read anything from Murray Rothbard? I’ve never seen him write anything about it, but he covers a whole bunch of other topics.

David Nolan
Murray Rothbard
John Hospers
Roy Childs

Here’s a video about the history of the party. Consider how many issues are raised.

The founding members of the Libertarian Party quickly realized that pushing the legalization of pot wasn’t getting them where they wanted to go, so the agenda went underground. That is why you don’t see it heading up the issues as it did when the party was formed. It’s more acceptable to say you are “non-interventionist” than that you want drugs legalized. There are some savvy strategists within the Libertarian Party, no doubt. You can cite whatever sources you wish. Accuse me of libel if you wish. I am stating what I saw, heard, and read when the party was in its raw beginnings in Colorado. Had a lot of encounters with the Party back then. Many of my friends totally supported the party and did what they could to help. Of course the format has changed substantially over the years. The platform has evolved. But no one is going to tell me about the history when I lived it.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

**Whether Libertarian, Green, Constitutional, Socialist or anything else, this will always happen in the United States. It is a necessary consequence of the two-party system.
**
Also, I find this objection rather confusing.

1. Even if it wasn’t done by a party, it would be done (and IS done) by interest groups: the religious right, the labor unions, the military, wall street, big oil, big pharmaceuticals, and so on and so on.
2. You act as if the parties (in this case, the Republican party) were always the same… like they aren’t constantly changing. Nonsense. They weren’t. They change all the time. Agendas change all the time. For some time, Republicans upheld a non-interventionist foreign policy. You don’t even have to look that far back to find changes in the Republican party. Consider George W. Bush’s words in the year 2000 (only 12 years ago!):

“I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building.”

Now, Republicans are in the business of building nations all around the world. Pretty significant change, don’t you think?

Wrong. The other minority parties have not invaded the Republican Party, or for that matter, the Democrat Party. They have the integrity to stand or fall on their own merit.

What? You say REPUBLICANS are in the business of building nations all around the world? Really? What republicans?

And just because these groups have successfully twisted any party’s platform or strategies, does not mean it should be allowed to continue. After all, the Democrat Party would not have gone so ultra-liberal if unions and radical environmentalists had less power.

 

[TEPO]

So you two are saying that the political position the most clearly reflects the Gospel is that the poor and downtrodden need a chance to “work hard” or be “free” to face their consequences?

I dunno. In the Lord’s depiction of the Last Judgement, he said “the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?”, not “when did we see you hungry, thirsty, naked, ill, or in prison…and failed to see that you had the opportunity out there somewhere to get yourself a job?”

I don’t want to trivialize the importance of giving everyone an opportunity to work–those who will not work should not eat, as the Apostle wrote–and that is a basic part of human dignity. Still, that cannot be all there is, because we know what use opportunitists make of their opportunities. To be hard-working is not to be invulnerable to that kind of fellow citizen! I feel as if the Libertarians pay too little attention to that reality of human nature.

Well, as for myself, I agree with and find interesting the concept of “Conservative Libertarianism” specifically in a Law and Order sense…

The way I interpret the ideology of the OP, is that there should be more conservative changes in the media and among those who influence the lives of everyday people. Take for example movies that trivialize cocaine use, and pornography, and sex… What about the music that gets radio-time with it’s filthy lyrics…? If these things were cleaned-up, on a Conservative level, it would benefit the morality of the people… This would require Conservative law.

At the same time, the ***libertarian ideology in regards to order *** would imply that people need to be responsible for their own survival. That instead of using the government to achieve your needs, one might be better working together with others to build stability as a group.

I believe that the United States dollar should embark on a capitalist economy which should be global. I also think that there should be a second currency created as a privatized, yet socialized CO-OP system that is non-governmental, yet patriotic at the same time. For those whose jobs have gone overseas can surely organize to make products within their own system… A completely seperate monetary system.

You see, Libertarianism is all about Liberty and Personal responsibility. It’s about taking charge of your own life and making things happen. It’s not about reliance.

We have always been a nation of leaders… Not a nation of peasants.

(this is just my personal view).

 

[TEPO]

Taxation is not theft. Theft is the appropriation of something one has no right to. The Christian says that the State certainly has a right to demand the payment of taxes (“render unto Caesar…”) because while the individual has a right to private property, it is not absolute and is subordinate to the moral laws of God. It is the libertarian who says that taxation is theft. And it is he who says that “theft is wrong, except” because he is forced to admit that a small amount of taxation must be tolerated to fund a minimalist state.

As long as dollars are printed and paid for by the US government, the government has the right to tax at least for the cost of printing the money… Or else there would be no money in the first place. So yes -there is no way possible that anyone can claim that taxation is theft… Not even the libertarian.

Also, The individual does indeed have absolute rights to private property here on earth, if man makes it so. Whereas, property (such as the body) is subordinate to the will of God involving our passing on into the afterlife. This is so because there have been some among us who have entered heaven both body and soul (assumption), while the Saints enter heaven without a physical body.

Therefore *everlasting property ownership *is subordinate to the will of God, whereas *earthly property ownership *is subordinate to the free-will of those who write the laws.

 

[ManOnFire]

Well, the libertarian idea of freedom is just another secular idea of freedom. I cannot affirm any idea of liberty without God. It’s very similar to the idea of the liberal left, except its focus is more economic than social.

The God part is the “conservative” part of Conservative Libertarians.

 

[EasterJoy]

The God part is the “conservative” part of Conservative Libertarians.

So you’re talking about an entirely new party, Conservative Libertarians, not just being conservatives within the existing Libertarian party…as if someone were forming the Christian Democratic Party, or something like that?

I say that because there is not a snowball’s chance that the Libertarians are going to ally themselves with theistic religion. Not a snowball’s chance in a very hot oven (so to speak).

 

[sw85]

Libertarianism (and, to the extent applicable, modern “conservatism”) is based on the principle of epistemic weakness, the idea that man can have no true or certain knowledge of the good and therefore must allow each man individually to ascertain and pursue the good as he sees it.

There are two problems with this principle. The first is that it is essentially procedural, not substantive; I don’t believe any society has ever functioned without a clear and coherent conception of the good. I don’t think such a monster is even possible. In fact, the idea of freedom and equality has, I think, proven unsustainable as a procedural principle and has begun to morph into a substantive one: thus, classical liberalism has progressed into modern liberalism. (James Kalb made this argument in his masterful book, The Tyranny of Liberalism).

The second is that the principle of epistemic weakness is simply false. There is no reason to believe it’s true. It’s a self refuting in a strict sense, since, if it were true, you could never possess sure knowledge that it was true. The sure knowledge that it is true (the conviction held by most libertarians) is evidence that even they don’t think it’s true, they’re just a priori committed to acting as if it is.

I also don’t see how a good Catholic can also be a good libertarian, i.e., hold to this principle. Our faith is founded on the claim that truth – Truth Itself – has been revealed to man in the form of Christ, and that this revelation is a continuing one, in the form of the Church which He established, a Church which is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Refusal to assent to this dogma is heresy, and heresy impairs communion with the Church. So it seems to me an impossible tension to sustain, at least if one thinks critically about one’s presuppositions. This tension arises from the fact that libertarianism is a modern philosophy, and modernity is borne of reactionary opposition to historical Catholicism. Insofar as modern “conservatism” (even Burkean conservatism) is also a product of modern thought, it cannot be reconciled well with Catholicism, either. The last political thinkers I believe got anything right were the French counterrevolutionaries, whom everyone now reviles as fascist (mainly because of ignorance, animus, and a priori commitment to the preservation of at least some aspects of liberal modernity).

There are other problems with libertarianism, too. Its emphasis on consent as the glue binding deontological libertarianism together is a problem because it cannot explain what makes consent binding – certainly I never consented that my consent to do X should be binding, so clearly there is a nonconsensual imposition above and beyond consent, namely, the duty to do whatever you agreed to do in the first place. (Edward Feser touched on this well before me). But this proves that consent is not, in fact, a primary good. The libertarian can say that the binding character of consent is intended to be axiomatic, i.e., not proved by reference to anything prior to itself; but this is simply a concession that there’s no reason to believe libertarianism except the arbitrary say-so of the individual will.

Ultimately, my problem with libertarianism is the falseness of its conception of rights (born of the errors identified in the book linked to above) and, thus, its undue emphasis on a bogus conception of “freedom.” This idea of “freedom” grossly misrepresents the order of being, which is by nature unfree: you are born into what you are, a largely unchosen state (sex, nationality, ethnicity, time period, family, SES, intellect, health, etc.), and these unchosen constraints impose ethical obligations on you which you are also not free to choose to avoid. If freedom is the highest good, though, why should I be bound by what nature has imposed on me without my consent? The order of being itself comes to be experienced as oppressive and unjust. So you get people rebelling against it, for instance, by trying to change their sex (by mutilating their genitals). And if they can’t afford this, well, poverty is unchosen, too, so it is also an unjust constraint that must be eliminated. So you wind up, very quickly, with the aforementioned morphing of libertarian from a procedural to a substantive policy, and classical liberalism into its more virulent and evil modern form.

 

[ManOnFire]

A responsible individualism involves consideration of the collective good. Individualism without respect of the common good is selfishness. The pursuit of certain ideals of what the common good is without respect for the individual is collectivism. I affirm neither.

I too, am in the middle of these. My recent interest in the Libertarianism part has to do with society’s overall direction regarding increased dependency on the state.

 

[sw85]

I too, am in the middle of these. My recent interest in the Libertarianism part has to do with society’s overall direction regarding increased dependency on the state.

Dependency is intrinsically noble, though, and indeed family relations (the central unit of society) are simply networks of dependency. The problem isn’t dependency qua dependency but the forced displacement of these organic and natural dependency networks (like families and local communities) with mechanistic and impersonal networks of relations, namely federal government bureaucracy.

Libertarianism isn’t an antidote to this because it seeks the destruction of these mechanistic dependency networks (i.e., government food stamps and unemployment) but has no understanding of what to do in order to allow natural dependency networks to reassert themselves. For instance, widespread divorce is clearly a major impediment to that, but libertarians are committed to allowing it to continue, because requiring marital commitments to be lifelong would constitute an unjust restraint on the wills of its participants.

 

[ManOnFire]

So you’re talking about an entirely new party, Conservative Libertarians, not just being conservatives within the existing Libertarian party…as if someone were forming the Christian Democratic Party, or something like that?

I say that because there is not a snowball’s chance that the Libertarians are going to ally themselves with theistic religion. Not a snowball’s chance in a very hot oven (so to speak).

I believe they call it the Fusion Party. It’s not pure Libertarianism nor Conservatism. “Embracing goodness” will avoid the theistic religion hangup. Something’s gotta give: continue to raise taxes on innocent people to pay for others’ who embrace badness until it makes them dependents, which is too reactionary for me, or embrace goodness for all of society, which will be more preventative. Prevention is best.

 

[ManOnFire]

Libertarianism (and, to the extent applicable, modern “conservatism”) is based on the principle of epistemic weakness, the idea that man can have no true or certain knowledge of the good and therefore must allow each man individually to ascertain and pursue the good as he sees it.

There are two problems with this principle. The first is that it is essentially procedural, not substantive; I don’t believe any society has ever functioned without a clear and coherent conception of the good. I don’t think such a monster is even possible. In fact, the idea of freedom and equality has, I think, proven unsustainable as a procedural principle and has begun to morph into a substantive one: thus, classical liberalism has progressed into modern liberalism. (James Kalb made this argument in his masterful book, The Tyranny of Liberalism).

The second is that the principle of epistemic weakness is simply false. There is no reason to believe it’s true. It’s a self refuting in a strict sense, since, if it were true, you could never possess sure knowledge that it was true. The sure knowledge that it is true (the conviction held by most libertarians) is evidence that even they don’t think it’s true, they’re just a priori committed to acting as if it is.

I also don’t see how a good Catholic can also be a good libertarian, i.e., hold to this principle. Our faith is founded on the claim that truth – Truth Itself – has been revealed to man in the form of Christ, and that this revelation is a continuing one, in the form of the Church which He established, a Church which is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Refusal to assent to this dogma is heresy, and heresy impairs communion with the Church. So it seems to me an impossible tension to sustain, at least if one thinks critically about one’s presuppositions. This tension arises from the fact that libertarianism is a modern philosophy, and modernity is borne of reactionary opposition to historical Catholicism. Insofar as modern “conservatism” (even Burkean conservatism) is also a product of modern thought, it cannot be reconciled well with Catholicism, either. The last political thinkers I believe got anything right were the French counterrevolutionaries, whom everyone now reviles as fascist (mainly because of ignorance, animus, and a priori commitment to the preservation of at least some aspects of liberal modernity).

There are other problems with libertarianism, too. Its emphasis on consent as the glue binding deontological libertarianism together is a problem because it cannot explain what makes consent binding – certainly I never consented that my consent to do X should be binding, so clearly there is a nonconsensual imposition above and beyond consent, namely, the duty to do whatever you agreed to do in the first place. (Edward Feser touched on this well before me). But this proves that consent is not, in fact, a primary good. The libertarian can say that the binding character of consent is intended to be axiomatic, i.e., not proved by reference to anything prior to itself; but this is simply a concession that there’s no reason to believe libertarianism except the arbitrary say-so of the individual will.

Ultimately, my problem with libertarianism is the falseness of its conception of rights (born of the errors identified in the book linked to above) and, thus, its undue emphasis on a bogus conception of “freedom.” This idea of “freedom” grossly misrepresents the order of being, which is by nature unfree: you are born into what you are, a largely unchosen state (sex, nationality, ethnicity, time period, family, SES, intellect, health, etc.), and these unchosen constraints impose ethical obligations on you which you are also not free to choose to avoid. If freedom is the highest good, though, why should I be bound by what nature has imposed on me without my consent? The order of being itself comes to be experienced as oppressive and unjust. So you get people rebelling against it, for instance, by trying to change their sex (by mutilating their genitals). And if they can’t afford this, well, poverty is unchosen, too, so it is also an unjust constraint that must be eliminated. So you wind up, very quickly, with the aforementioned morphing of libertarian from a procedural to a substantive policy, and classical liberalism into its more virulent and evil modern form.

But that’s where the social Conservative part (God) seems to balance the moral relativistic nature of pure Libertarianism.

 

[ManOnFire]

Dependency is intrinsically noble, though, and indeed family relations (the central unit of society) are simply networks of dependency. The problem isn’t dependency qua dependency but the forced displacement of these organic and natural dependency networks (like families and local communities) with mechanistic and impersonal networks of relations, namely federal government bureaucracy.

Libertarianism isn’t an antidote to this because it seeks the destruction of these mechanistic dependency networks (i.e., government food stamps and unemployment) but has no understanding of what to do in order to allow natural dependency networks to reassert themselves. For instance, widespread divorce is clearly a major impediment to that, but libertarians are committed to allowing it to continue, because requiring marital commitments to be lifelong would constitute an unjust restraint on the wills of its participants.

I would qualify by stating that dependency which is rooted in love, as in the family, is noble, and it is not dependent on the taxpayer, but, the dependency on money that is due to the self-love that causes people to act less responsibly due to free will choices, is not noble, especially when those free will choices burden others.

 

[TEPO]

Libertarianism (and, to the extent applicable, modern “conservatism”) is based on the principle of epistemic weakness, the idea that man can have no true or certain knowledge of the good and therefore must allow each man individually to ascertain and pursue the good as he sees it.

There are two problems with this principle. The first is that it is essentially procedural, not substantive; I don’t believe any society has ever functioned without a clear and coherent conception of the good. I don’t think such a monster is even possible. In fact, the idea of freedom and equality has, I think, proven unsustainable as a procedural principle and has begun to morph into a substantive one: thus, classical liberalism has progressed into modern liberalism. (James Kalb made this argument in his masterful book, The Tyranny of Liberalism).

The second is that the principle of epistemic weakness is simply false. There is no reason to believe it’s true. It’s a self refuting in a strict sense, since, if it were true, you could never possess sure knowledge that it was true. The sure knowledge that it is true (the conviction held by most libertarians) is evidence that even they don’t think it’s true, they’re just a priori committed to acting as if it is.

I also don’t see how a good Catholic can also be a good libertarian, i.e., hold to this principle. Our faith is founded on the claim that truth – Truth Itself – has been revealed to man in the form of Christ, and that this revelation is a continuing one, in the form of the Church which He established, a Church which is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Refusal to assent to this dogma is heresy, and heresy impairs communion with the Church. So it seems to me an impossible tension to sustain, at least if one thinks critically about one’s presuppositions. This tension arises from the fact that libertarianism is a modern philosophy, and modernity is borne of reactionary opposition to historical Catholicism. Insofar as modern “conservatism” (even Burkean conservatism) is also a product of modern thought, it cannot be reconciled well with Catholicism, either. The last political thinkers I believe got anything right were the French counterrevolutionaries, whom everyone now reviles as fascist (mainly because of ignorance, animus, and a priori commitment to the preservation of at least some aspects of liberal modernity).

There are other problems with libertarianism, too. Its emphasis on consent as the glue binding deontological libertarianism together is a problem because it cannot explain what makes consent binding – certainly I never consented that my consent to do X should be binding, so clearly there is a nonconsensual imposition above and beyond consent, namely, the duty to do whatever you agreed to do in the first place. (Edward Feser touched on this well before me). But this proves that consent is not, in fact, a primary good. The libertarian can say that the binding character of consent is intended to be axiomatic, i.e., not proved by reference to anything prior to itself; but this is simply a concession that there’s no reason to believe libertarianism except the arbitrary say-so of the individual will.

Ultimately, my problem with libertarianism is the falseness of its conception of rights (born of the errors identified in the book linked to above) and, thus, its undue emphasis on a bogus conception of “freedom.” This idea of “freedom” grossly misrepresents the order of being, which is by nature unfree: you are born into what you are, a largely unchosen state (sex, nationality, ethnicity, time period, family, SES, intellect, health, etc.), and these unchosen constraints impose ethical obligations on you which you are also not free to choose to avoid. If freedom is the highest good, though, why should I be bound by what nature has imposed on me without my consent? The order of being itself comes to be experienced as oppressive and unjust. So you get people rebelling against it, for instance, by trying to change their sex (by mutilating their genitals). And if they can’t afford this, well, poverty is unchosen, too, so it is also an unjust constraint that must be eliminated. So you wind up, very quickly, with the aforementioned morphing of libertarian from a procedural to a substantive policy, and classical liberalism into its more virulent and evil modern form.

Yuck, that sounds just like the democratic party minus the socialism. That’s “liberalism”.

 

[EasterJoy]

I would qualify by stating that dependency which is rooted in love, as in the family, is noble, and it is not dependent on the taxpayer, but, the dependency on money that is due to the self-love that causes people to act less responsibly due to free will choices, is not noble, especially when those free will choices burden others.

This sounds good at first read, but if applied to actual situations I can think of, it looks more like either sentimental nonsense or an excuse for a blanket refusal to support even legitimate uses of money in support of those who have a true need purely because it is tax money that will meet the need.

A great many families mean well but undermine responsibility because they believe that dependency is somehow “noble” when you’re letting a family member sponge off of the rest of the family. How does a relationship of love preclude a motive of self-love, then? No magical wisdom or expertise about how to help those one sees are in need of help comes flying in because they are in a family or other circle of those loved, either. Besides, right after commanding us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, the Lord said bluntly: “For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same.” (Luke 6:32-33) I can’t see how the premise that dependency is magically more noble if given within the context of a personal attachment or a blood tie. IMHO, mind you, neither the Gospel nor personal experience says that.

Conversely, the state might underwrite “dependency” that fosters responsibility and self-support, such as offering money to train people for jobs. It is also far from impossible for someone to do their job as a labor of love just because their paycheck is funded with taxpayer dollars. Are you saying that public school teachers don’t love their students, because they work for a paycheck paid by taxpayers? I hope not. Public servants have often been known to be true servants of the greater good, and that can’t be denied.

I believe they call it the Fusion Party. It’s not pure Libertarianism nor Conservatism. “Embracing goodness” will avoid the theistic religion hangup. Something’s gotta give: continue to raise taxes on innocent people to pay for others’ who embrace badness until it makes them dependents, which is too reactionary for me, or embrace goodness for all of society, which will be more preventative. Prevention is best.

I don’t have avoidance of the “theistic religion hang-up” as a goal. I’m just pointing out that the Libertarians have that issue.

Prevention is best, yes, but it is not enough. When in human history has “goodness embraced for all of society” resulted in enough justice, let alone enough human decency towards those vulnerable to opportunists? You’re not going to prevent the work of bad luck and bad-acting (or ignorant) people from confronting society with suffering people who have nowhere to turn for help, both through their own choices and through the choices of others. We have to see those suffering people and decide how to deal with that…which, when we’re voters, means using our power as voters, too.

Now, if you’re talking about building incentives for self-sufficiency into whatever mechanism is in place to help those who are suffering or in need of outside help, I cannot do anything but agree with that. Who is not tempted to let someone else do all the heavy lifting when you feel you’ve been dropped into a pit? Sometimes you need to be pulled out, you really can’t help, but if you can help, it does you all the good in the world, even if you weren’t all that inclined to make an effort at the start.

I do not have any feeling that it has to be the public sector that accomplishes this or that it has to be the private sector. If the private sector is managing fine or might do the job better, then fine. Don’t mess with what’s working. Let people organize themselves, if they’re doing that or seem to want to do that. When it works, initiatives that originate freely from among those near the problem do tend to be cheaper and more suited to the situation “on the ground” than initiatives originating from theories cooked up outside. If what can be improvise “on the ground” isn’t meeting the need, though, then maybe this is one of those things that require some public sector help of some kind. It just depends.

You can see why I have trouble finding a political party. From my point of view, they all seem to feel a need to find a one-size-fits-all answer before they know what the problems are going to be: taxes are bad, taxes are necessary, active foreign policy is vital, active foreign policy is too expensive, yada yada. Nobody can start a party which says, “sometimes we need to pitch in together and pay for some things, sometimes we need people to pay for it themselves or do without, sometimes we have to put limits on ourselves, sometimes we have to quit being so controlling and let some other people be free to make stupid choices, some wars are necesssary, some are bad…we have principles through which to discern these things, but to some extent it depends on the situation”. It’s like the idiotic opposite of relative morality. It isn’t objective or subjective, but rather pre-packaged, pre-posed, and pre-determined to do what it takes to get decision-making power and keep it. Build the garment, then make the body fit it, or you’ve lost any hope you have of support from your constituents. Are voting constituencies really that foolish?

No, I’m not the least bit cynical about politics.

 

[King_Lazy]

Yuck, that sounds just like the democratic party minus the socialism. That’s “liberalism”.

Indeed. Libertarianism essentially is the Democratic Party minus the socialism.

sw85 interestingly showed how pointed out the essential similarity between libertarianism and liberalism, showing that the principles of freedom and equality underlying modern liberalism, libertarianism and modern conservatism exist in different forms, with their original and more benign understandings having proved unsustainable and necessarily having morphed to the more evil ideas of today.

He also tore down the liberal misconception of freedom and hinted at the conservative and libertarian ideas inescapably morphing into the more evil modern liberal idea, which rebels against the natural order of being.

Thanks, sw85, for showing, in a more well-reasoned way than I ever could have, how modern political philosophy, including even the seemingly benign philosophies we nowadays refer to as conservatism and which we often mistake for some form of godliness, is actually rotten to its very core as a result of its own foundational principles, and is thus irreconcilable with Catholic teaching. It’s something I have gradually become aware of, but that I lack the intelligence to express as well as you did.