June 05, 2008
"The libertarian dream turns into the totalitarian nightmare..."
In one sense, much of my blogging is just wasted electrons, since I'm often arguing against liberalism, which is incapable of arguing back. Or even thinking clearly. I've never once, since 11/2001, been given a real argument by a leftist. The poltroons carp and sneer, but don't dare think, or express their philosophy clearly
But I have often been counter-punched by my libertarian readers. Actually been forced to think to defend my hasty posts. Thank you, friends!
And in that spirit, this is a criticism of libertarian thinking that puts clearly things I've sort of groped towards...
R.R. Reno, in First Things, writing about the book Nation of Bastards: Essays on the End of Marriage
...In other words, in the old system, the state presumed the existence of a substantive, natural reality that required legal adumbration: the union of a man and a woman, and the children resulting from their sexual relations. Now the Canadian government sees that it must intervene and redefine marriage and parenthood in order to give fixed legal standing to otherwise fluid and uncertain social relations. When the gay friend donates his sperm to the surrogate mother hired by a lesbian couple, the resulting “family” is a purely legal construct, one that requires the power of state to enforce contracts and attach children to adoptive parents.
The result is the opposite of the libertarian dream of freedom. As Farrow observes, with gay marriage we are giving over the family to the state to define according to the needs of the moment. The upshot, he worries, will be a dangerous increase in the power of the state to define our lives in other realms once thought sacrosanct. “Remove religiously motivated restrictions on marriage,” he writes, “and it is much easier to remove religiously motivated restrictions on human behavior in general, and on the state’s power to order human society as it sees fit.” The libertarian dream turns into the totalitarian nightmare. Who can or cannot be a spouse? That’s for the state to decide. To whom do children belong? It’s up to the state to assign parents as its social workers and judges think best...
One of the big "projects" of Enlightenment thinking was (and is) to try to construct morality without religion. "Morality without dogma." As far as I know, it's never worked, never happened. What really happens is that secularists retain a lot of Jewish and Christian morality, and fool themselves into thinking that that's what people can come up with as a matter of course, using reason, without needing religion.
Same with libertarianism, which is an off-shoot of this project. The libertarian assumes that people, if they are free to choose, will choose the good. But in fact each generation of libertarians re-defines "the good" down to whatever reduced level of morality prevails at that moment. A libertarian of fifty years ago would have said that people, if free to choose, will—most of them—form stable marriages of a man and a woman, and raise several children, and act wisely in a variety of similar ways, without those hectoring preachers and restrictive laws. And indeed they did, back then.
Libertarians now probably say that we shouldn't worry; if people are free to choose they will, most of them, marry other human beings. Or at least form caring relationships that can be expected to last for a period of several years.
And I'll bet that fifty years from now, libertarians will be scoffing at those stick-in-the-mud theists with their fear-mongering about the rise of cannibalism-as-entertainment. "Just let the market-place work, and people will choose the good. Most of them, anyway."
Posted by John Weidner at June 5, 2008 07:34 AMHello,
I'm new here. I'm interested in political opinions. I have read a few of your posts and am puzzled as to where my political stance lies. For so long I have thought of myself as a liberal. Now I am not so sure. I will defend my sister-in-laws right to have her gay marriage, but I resent illegals taking American jobs and sending their pay back to Mexico. I am concerned for this wonderful country. Why can't I find "American Made" on the market shelves? Why are the companies moving to other countries? Is it a leftist plot or a rightist greed? Why are prices rising? Is it a leftist plot or rightist greed?
Yes, liberalism has caused a deterioration of values. Reins should be kept tight. But as well on capitalism. Where do we draw the line? I want to buy "American Made."
--Gryphon
Posted by: Gryphon at June 5, 2008 09:02 AMGood questions, Gryphon. I hope you keep reading here.
One quick thought before I get back to work. (Making stuff in America, in my humble way.) I suspect your definition of "American made" is out of date. Suppose you buy a kid a plastic toy for $10, and it says "Made in China."
What probably happened is that China got a crummy 50¢ for the object. and American workers got $9.50 for adding value of a more intangible sort. For advertising, for the entertainment industry that lives of advertising, for insurance and legal work, for trucking, for sales clerks and store managers, for government regulators. For a zillion jobs that go into getting that Barbie Doll into your hands.
It's really 95% "American made;" we just exported the low-end low-pay jobs, and kept the better ones. And the Chinese got money to buy our movies and software and Boeing jets, (if we do a good job making and selling them.)
Posted by: John Weidner at June 5, 2008 09:43 AMGryphon— "For so long, I have thought of myself as a liberal."
Part of your problem is no doubt with the shifting definition of the word. You may be what is called a "classic liberal," someone whose political opinions trend towards more freedom. This tends to be very different from the way our host uses the term. He uses it in the contemporary US political sense, which is very different from the classic sense, and which is redefined all the time. The political version of the term liberal meant something different twenty years ago than it does today.
Being concerned about illegal immigration does not make you un-liberal, though I'm sure there are people who will try to convince you so.
And as to rising prices, I think the most apt quote is to say, "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity." A lot of people, left and right, made a lot of decisions for short-term purposes, and now the long term is coming back to bite them in the butt.
The worst part is that the numbers were there to predict exactly this outcome years ago. You can, for example, trace the housing bubble sites and find posts from three or more years back that not only predicted the crash but its timing and trajectory, something that would not have been possible were it not for the stupid practices of the lenders.
But there seems to be a sort of wild amnesia in regards to the economy. People forget that unlimited upward momentum is not sustainable (while moderate upward momentum might be.) Ah, well.
Posted by: B. Durbin at June 5, 2008 09:56 AMWell you won’t get much of a counter-punch from me. Mr. Reno’s review touches on all the reasons why I am not a Libertarian. I was once. In college I went to several meetings, attended discussion groups, etc. Even then I was struck by something. Libertarians can speak very eloquently about the unintended consequences of government action, but when it comes to the potential unintended consequences of their own policy/cultural recommendations they behave very much like modern liberals – they simply won’t allow themselves to go there.
Challenges to the faith are dismissed. I remember once someone within the group wanted to discuss a common criticism of Libertarian doctrine – “Would the legalization of drugs lead to more widespread drug use?” This was a group of highly intelligent, rhetorically proficient people, and not a single one said, “No, and here’s why…”, or, “It may, but here is why that wouldn’t matter…” Instead, the topic itself was met with scoffs and eye-rolling. It has been my experience that Libertarians often respond similarly to many such questions.
I was very pleased to see Mr. Reno invoke Edmund Burke in his argument. In my mind, Burke was a truly brilliant political thinker and he, more than anyone else, turned me from Libertarian to Conservative.
