We All Scream (and We Should at This)

A Massachusetts town has shut down a 12 year old boy's home made ice cream business, one where the lad was giving half the proceeds to charity I will point out, citing food handling concerns. What utter nonsense. Here's the story.

This is, as is so often the case, government regulatory powers run amok. Stories such as this make my blood boil. It doesn't even matter, as a moral point, whether it's a 12 year old or an adult. If someone wants to make homemade ice cream and sell it simply to make a few bucks for themselves then dammit, they have the right to do so. It isn't anyone else's, much less the government's, business. If you're afraid you'll get sick then don't buy the stupid ice cream. Who the hell are you, government or anyone else (and government is 'anyone else' being a bully), to tell someone they can't do such a thing?

I remember buying bread from a home based baker in the Upper Peninsula who was forced to put an emphatic sticker on his wares, warning that his bread was baked in a kitchen not regulated by the Michigan Department of Agriculture. Oh the humanity. This guy baked bread of his own free will and I bought a loaf (and some cookies) on mine. So piss off, Ag boys. It's nothing to you.

These are prime examples of why I am growing increasingly libertarian as I get older. One of their standards is that if you can do something for free, you can do it for pay. This can't be applied to all things at all times I'll admit, but it's a good general principle. The Hessel baker could give his bread and cookies away quite morally and have no issue with the government. He can therefore sell them for profit without a government stamp of any kind. Just like the preteen in Massachusetts with his ice cream. He can give it away (which he did end up doing, although with requests for good will donations) but he can't sell it? Inane. No, worse: bizarre.

Government is too big and too much a part of our lives. Time to tell it to, to, just go away.

Why I cannot be libertarian

I have said to many folks, particularly my libertarian friends, that I want to be a libertarian so bad I can taste it. And I mean that. So what keeps me from signing on?

A handful of issues, for starters: as a group, they support abortion; they don't care for an aggressive foreign policy; and I simply can't quite come around on drug questions. Further, and this will sound very odd coming from me, they have too much of a distrust of government. Like it or not, there are things which only a government can do. Keeping order, for one, and keeping real and potential enemies at bay with the aggressive measures necessary. Then there's that pesky fact that freedom, which they champion to excess quite frankly, is a means rather than an end. Freedom is how we do things, not why, and while as a conservative I believe that the society which is best is one with the greatest rational amount of freedom, freedom as freedom cannot justify one solitary thing. This leads to I think the root problem with libertarianism as it stands today. It is the belief that the individual is the final arbiter of morality, the one who sets the standard for right and wrong.

No individual can hold this kind of power. On a practical level, it invites anarchy, or worse: a might makes right society. On a philosophic level, it begs one very important question: if I, as an individual, can make up my own mind about people and things, why should I ever listen to you? No progress can be made from such a starting point in ethics, which certainly means nothing can be done in any other area either.

If libertarians were to admit that it is not the individual (or that weak sister, consensus) which dictates what can and cannot be done, that justice and rightness exist outside of those realms having a genuine being of their own, I may reconsider my position. Until then, they are as bad as liberals: they want what they want because they want it. It is a poor substitute for critical thought on critical issues.

Bork and the libertarians

Robert Bork was an American law school professor and jurist. He is perhaps the greatest American legal scholar who was never on the Supreme Court; that is the greatest crime of the Democratic Senate of 1987 and the greatest mistake of the Reagan Administration. If anyone should have been on the highest court in the land, it should have been Judge Bork.

He wrote a nifty little book back in the 1990s titled Slouching Towards Gomorrah. In it he opines on what has become wrong with America, and the book is chock full of good ideas and excellent ruminations on what has gone wrong with the US body politic as well as its legal system. We intend to explore a few of those ideas in the coming weeks. Today we will begin with this one: his view of libertarians.

If we understand the man correctly, he argues that libertarians lack a sense of social obligation. If we understand that correctly, we agree with him. Libertarians fail to grasp that there are more injuries possible to people than those which are physical or material. People can be harmed in ways beyond that, and we have an obligation to avoid that sort of harm as well.

Take illicit television or vile and despicable music, for example. All that is defended on the the First Amendment right to free speech. On that basis the libertarian says if you don't like the show or the song, simply change the channel or don't listen. Yet that argument is ultimately shallow and indeed insulting to the person who is trying to make themselves, their children, and their world better based on rational and objective standards of decency. One parent can turn off the radio, yes. But other parents might not, and it is a practical impossibility to keep our children away from every worldly influence. Society has the obligation and parents the right to expect the cooperation of society in raising their children well. This means making decisions on what ought and ought not be broadcast, and that society has the right to make such decisions. They do not involve physical or material harm, but they may well harm folks just the same in making them effectively less than human, again by rational and objective standards.

No man, it is said, is an island. What we do affects what other people do; what we think affects how other people think. Without a proper consideration of that we risk harming the people around us and damaging our own spirits as well. We are all role models whether we think so or not. Circumstance forces that upon us. We have no right to say, as the libertarian too often does, that I own myself and am therefore not responsible for anyone else. They forget that a very important part of ownership is stewardship, which demands that we do what is best for all involved and not merely for what suits our perceived immediate needs. Such needs may only be vile and contemptible. A rational, reflective, self aware being surely recognizes that. They must also know, in their hearts anyway, that ownership means not only self interest but also responsibility.

Libertarians and Social Responsibility

Robert Bork was an American law school professor and jurist. He is perhaps the greatest American legal scholar who was never on the Supreme Court; that is the greatest crime of the Democratic Senate of 1987 and the greatest mistake of the Reagan Administration. If anyone should have been on the highest court in the land, it should have been Judge Bork.

He wrote a nifty little book back in the 1990s titled Slouching Towards Gomorrah. In it he opines on what has become wrong with America, and the book is chock full of good ideas and excellent ruminations on what has gone wrong with the US body politic as well as its legal system. We intend to explore a few of those ideas in the coming weeks. Today we will begin with this one: his view of libertarians.

If we understand the man correctly, he argues that libertarians lack a sense of social obligation. If we understand that correctly, we agree with him. Libertarians fail to grasp that there are more injuries possible to people than those which are physical or material. People can be harmed in ways beyond that, and we have an obligation to avoid that sort of harm as well.

Take illicit television or vile and despicable music, for example. All that is defended on the the First Amendment right to free speech. On that basis the libertarian says if you don't like the show or the song, simply change the channel or don't listen. Yet that argument is ultimately shallow and indeed insulting to the person who is trying to make themselves, their children, and their world better based on rational and objective standards of decency. One parent can turn off the radio, yes. But other parents might not, and it is a practical impossibility to keep our children away from every worldly influence. Society has the obligation and parents the right to expect the cooperation of society in raising their children well. This means making decisions on what ought and ought not be broadcast, and that society has the right to make such decisions. They do not involve physical or material harm, but they may well harm folks just the same in making them effectively less than human, again by rational and objective standards.

No man, it is said, is an island. What we do affects what other people do; what we think affects how other people think. Without a proper consideration of that we risk harming the people around us and damaging our own spirits as well. We are all role models whether we think so or not. Circumstance forces that upon us. We have no right to say, as the libertarian too often does, that I own myself and am therefore not responsible for anyone else. They forget that a very important part of ownership is stewardship, which demands that we do what is best for all involved and not merely for what suits our perceived immediate needs. Such needs may only be vile and contemptible. A rational, reflective, self aware being surely recognizes that. They must also know, in their hearts anyway, that ownership means not only self interest but also responsibility.

Libertarianism at war with itself

Libertarianism is, in an odd sort of way, like communism. Both look good on paper, yet neither is practical.

You don't think so? Well, what about these concerns:

For libertarianism to sustain itself, it would require a guaranteed, eternal majority. This will not happen or, at best, it will only happen during short runs. People, being people, will use their free will and shoot libertarianism out of the sky.

It might work with an iron first under a benevolent dictator. But there are two problems with that. One, we see how that has worked for communism, and two, that also would rely on an eternal march of benevolent dictators. That won't happen either, and, further, would actually mock libertarianism.

Then there's the business of freedom. Libertarians preach it with an almost religious fervor. It's their end-all be-all. But 'I'm for freedom' isn't really a tenable position. It begs an entire litany of questions, not the least of which are questions like, freedom to do what, freedom to be what, and whether what we want are things we ought to want. Libertarians forget, or refuse to accept, that freedom is only a means. It is not an end. That is, unless you want total, complete freedom to do absolutely anything you want. To be sure, they don't believe that. They believe there are some limitations on human behavior. But note that that means they aren't actually in favor of freedom anyway because they do, when it suits them, restrict it.

Next there's the matter of how they might get their agenda in place. In the United States today that cannot happen except through revolution or politics. Yet they abhor politics and politicians, and even should they approve of a revolution (which would be dangerous as such things tend towards going out of control) and perhaps a contradiction within their philosophy. How can you force people to become libertarians against their will? You can't, outside of confessing that freedom is not without bounds. Unless, again, and we love hammering this point home, you don't believe in unfettered liberty.

At the end of the day, libertarian philosophy contradicts itself. We believe that is evident in the above comments. You simply cannot preach freedom as an end and then argue that it can be restricted in any way, shape, or form.

They sound good and they look good. Yet all they do is bang an empty drum.

Markets are coercive too

Our libertarian friends make a big deal about how laws are coercive. Some go so far as to assert they do 'violence' against people, whatever that means, and as such are at least arguably wrong.

Maybe so, maybe no. It seems reasonable to allow that government when acting within its proper sphere must be allowed that strength. Still, the coercive ability of government certainly is indeed powerful and as such must be limited. But as the typical libertarian also demands freedom (whatever they mean by that) and free markets, we find ourselves asking, isn't freedom, aren't the markets, coercive too? Cannot people acting freely nonetheless be doing violence to others through whatever coercive measures may be at their disposal?

When a large corporate structure makes its employees work on what are holidays for most of the populace, isn't it being coercive? When a large corporate structure leans on its vendors for better prices and service, isn't it being coercive (and arguably violent, to use the libertarian catchphrase)? Why aren't such 'violences', which most certainly infringe on the freedom of others, as wrong as government action?

Perhaps because those involved in private endeavors realize what they're up against and accept the cost. That appears fair enough, so far as it goes. Yet how far does it really go? If you need your job but would like the time off with your family and friends, you are at least, again, arguably, having a violence done against you when made to work when most others are enjoying days off. If you have no realistic choice but to take the job you've got or are offered, isn't that still a demand against your freedom and free will? If Large Corporate Structure leans on your company or you employer's company to give a better deal or else, isn't violence being done to you and them? Why is that less of an affront to human dignity that a law?

Don't misunderstand our point: we would far prefer freer markets and freer people than we have in America today, and freer markets would surely give people greater choices in where they work and what they buy. We are simply not impressed with the violence argument with regard to government action. The question isn't whether government actions are coercive but whether they are right. So long as they are right, issues of freedom are superfluous. But more, if freedom is the real point of libertarianism then the movement ought to be a bit more concerned with a decided lack of real choice on the part of many people much of the time, and realize that often they are at the mercy of forces if not as powerful as government, still very strong and still to some degree oppressive. That was part of the point of Pope Francis's recent encyclical. Threats to freedom and dignity are not all at the hands of a congress or parliament.

Libertarians, Freedom, and Justice

Libertarians and conservatives seem so very close on several issues that it may at times be difficult to distinguish between the two. Yet certain distinctions can be made, and they may be all the difference in the world between the camps.

Perhaps the most serious difference lies in the areas of freedom and justice. Libertarians occasionally talk as though justice is the most important thing which human society ought to strive towards yet almost unfailingly insist that the measure of an act is the amount of freedom it allows. The problem is that freedom ultimately is a means rather than an end, and while it is easy to think that the society with the most freedom may (and the word may cannot be stressed enough) produce the most justice, that surely cannot be a given. A hedonistic society such as what the Western world sometimes appears hell bent for leather determined to make of itself surely welcomes a great (one is tempted to say an absurd) amount of freedom among the people. Do libertarians sufficiently address what that must mean?

Seeing as they are only seriously opposed to areas of direct and physical violence against persons, it is easy to say no. This isn't to say they oppose any and all nonviolent yet repugnant actions; we presume they are against libel and slander, for example. But do they take it far enough? Are there areas where, even though there may appear a lack of real violence against the person or society, there is yet a nonphysical violence which may yet hurt individuals and nations?

The conservative says yes. When society allows repugnant actions to be legal then it had begun teaching individuals and nations that the immoral is in fact moral. It begins to tear the fabric of civil society into little more than strands, each strand being each person, each person being free to do what they want, outside of overt violence, of course, without censure. When that happens, how long may it be before the strands cannot support even themselves? Likely as not, the moment they become too individual, too little concerned with the larger society. What will happen then? The strands that get together by whatever means will dominate the rest. That probably won't mean much for freedom, let alone justice.

Without a sense of true justice, decidedly non violent yet unjust actions will be seen as mere aspects of personal freedom. If it doesn't harm anyone directly and immediately it must, in the libertarian view, be allowed.

Such is a shallow definition of justice. But when a creed is based on mere freedom rather than on actual right and wrong, what can we expect in the long run but decay? If the libertarians wish to be taken seriously then they must accept that freedom isn't the end all be all of human actions. Until that happens, they will always be on the margin of political society. Or, worse, they will lead all of society to its destruction.

Whither Libertarians?

Where are they? Where are all those libertarians who demand greater and greater individual rights for, it seems, everyone under the Sun with a gripe against society (even those clamoring for 'rights' which weren't held to exist not too long ago)? It appears that libertarians are all for personal rights. Until that person is a Catholic, anyway.

We have heard nothing from the liberaltarians about freedom of conscience or religious liberty even in light of the blatant attack on the Church and Catholics by the Obama Administration. But let someone who wants to marry someone of the same sex lament their lack of freedom, and the libertarian liberals are coming out of the woodwork in their defense. Let a Republican leader call for us to be on guard against terrorism, say, and all we'll hear about are the rights of the accused and about how the GOP and the conservatives hold the world and dissenting Americans in contempt.

It is instances such as these which lead conservatives to question libertarian ideals. They lack a consistency which belies, quite frankly, their lack of a sense of justice. They're for freedom: for their friends, and the ideologies they like.

That stinks. Yet we're the hypocrites on freedom and individual rights. Go figure.

In Sheep's Clothing?

Have you ever noticed that libertarian and liberal both begin with the same five letters? Is it a coincidence, or not?

This point is driven home by the recent announcement that two 'liberaltarians' are supposedly being forced out of the Cato Institute, a traditionally libertarian think tank. But it could be that the pair are simply moving up the ladder, one of whom is moving over to work with The Economist.

Yet the precise nature of the change isn't really important. The fact is that libertarians are a bit of a schizophrenic bunch: liberal on social issues while conservative on fiscal matters. It is fair to ask if you can have it both ways and maintain any philosophic consistency.

Can one really be fiscally responsible in public policy while essentially arguing that social responsibility is a different question? Why do we have the freedom to do almost anything we want personally (provided it does not violate that vague and rather self-serving platitude: so long as it doesn't harm anyone else) yet have no such similar freedom politically? Indeed, how can one reasonably argue that financial discipline and personal discipline do not go hand in hand? If you are no good at the one it is doubtful you can be particularly effective at the other.

In short, libertarians are essentially liberals who happen to like fiscal discipline. Yet such is like getting blood from the proverbial turnip. If folks are not personally disciplined they are not likely to be publicly disciplined. After all, we reap what we sow. Sow freedom, reap freedom, with all the errors that must grow from that field. But sow justice, the idea that some things are really right and others really wrong on their own merit, and we improve society by having bettered ourselves.

LLC again: Why Social Issues must be Addressed in the Legal Arena

The other day we spoke here about the relative closeness of libertarians and conservatives. One interesting response to that assertion was that, while conservatives may talk the talk, they don't walk the walk. They use the courts the same way as liberals on issues such as marriage, drug use, and censorship. It is a point which merits a bit of follow up commentary.

For now, we'll set aside the question of how often conservatives go to court as opposed to their liberal friends. This is not because the point ought not be addressed but instead that it would be rather time consuming to do a full compare and contrast analysis right this minute. If we do not forget, or unless we simply get lazy (that happens sometimes at the Wayne County Conservative Examiner's Office) we shall look into it soon. But right this second we will content ourselves to point out that, in charging that the liberals go to court far too often and selfishly, we do not say that the legal route is always an invalid one. We only say that they pursue it too quickly, and without due regard to the legislative process or the actual meaning and intent of the US Constitution. If and where conservatives may also do as much, they would be subject to similar criticism.

Now, in talking about the issues of marriage, drug use, and censorship, indeed when addressing almost any of the so called social issues, there are two basic points when considering them in relation to the conservative/libertarian spectrum. The first is that they fall into the very areas where we have admitted differences between the two groups exist. They matter and must be discussed. The second is that, hopefully, anyway, we also disagree on them out of concern for the dignity of the individual as within the economic realm.

Libertarians assert that it is up to the individual when it comes to issues which do not, on the surface, appear to affect anyone else. Conservatives, ideally, anyways, stress that the point is not so simple. Your free will acts may well affect others, and must be tempered by good judgment. Indeed, it is the concern for the dignity of the person which calls us to enact laws which protect that dignity even if the persons involved may not want (or, especially, be able to use) such defenses. That is why abortion must be illegal: we are dealing, by any measure of Right Reason, with a person who cannot defend themselves. We need good law with such questions, even if it may seem, in some quarters, to be overreaching. With justice, it is difficult to overreach.

Then, too, with areas such as marriage, it is in fact out of respect for the person that society can and must define legal marriage. Not only because marriage and the family are the building blocks of society and as such a hearty, civil society requires a hearty, stable, and just family and personal environment, but because it may affect the rights of others in areas which get swept under the rug if they are considered at all.

Is a factory owner who opposes same sex marriage morally obliged to offer marital benefits to such a couple, when one of them is his employee? Either way you answer that question, notice closely what you are doing as you do it: defining marriage, and attempting ultimately to force whatever definition you come up with upon others. Without laws regulating what marriage means, on what grounds can we act in support of either belief?

Or do we simply leave the question hanging? That will only work if everyone agrees to it, and that won't happen. It won't happen because it shouldn't happen, and it won't happen because no one, liberal or conservative or libertarian, can or will let it go. We must address it, out of a proper concern for the human dignity of any and all involved, as well to give the correct legal standing to the point.

You get the gist by now. The dignity of the person is a question which does not apply solely to economic rights and responsibilities. Conservatives believe that; we think that in their hearts libertarians do too. If they did not, they wouldn't make an issue of such things themselves.

The LLC Connection

We have written several times herein about the political spectrum of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. Indeed, we have gone so far as to say that libertarians are really just liberals who happen to be fiscal conservatives. This is an idea which was, it seemed, cemented at a recent time when we read that some some libertarians have come to like the term 'liberaltarians'(we must thank a friend of a friend who pointed this out). But sometimes other things come along which give us pause.

In a speech given at Hillsdale College here in Michigan and reprinted in their neat little pamphlet called Imprimis (the particular article can be found here: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp) William McGurn, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, makes the case that libertarians and conservatives are actually much closer. Why? Due to the libertarian emphasis on economics and economic justice.

It is a fascinating speech and we will not attempt to repeat it in detail. But the gist is that what conservatives and those who share the ideal of economic freedom have in common is the belief that it is freedom which drives the machine which improves the human condition. This is because freedom allows greater innovations and deeper thought in decision making than any type of state controls might allow. Freedom invented the wheel, the cam, and the steam engine. Freedom eradicated disease. Freedom improved agriculture, advanced science, and opened minds. And why does freedom work?

Because it offers a positive trust in the individual.

This is not to say that what individuals may or may not do is boundless. But it is to say that, where there is no moral affront involved, freedom works. To be sure, and Mr. McGurn points this out, there are differences between libertarians and conservatives, and the differences matter. Still, it is at least arguable that the right wing and the libertarian are closer than the latter may be to the liberal because the liberal ultimately believes in government control of people and things despite how he may protest otherwise. That's why they go to the bureaucrats and the courts when the don't get their way. They believe in force, not freedom.

We are closer, perhaps, to libertarians than liberals are because we share, even if from different starting points, the same essential belief in individual human beings. The full bodied libertarian and the blue blooded conservative are so much concerned about human relations that it makes differences more acute, precisely because we are seeking to do and support what's right. Liberals believe in a vague, amorphous humanity, defined ultimately by their whim. Conservatives and libertarians believe in real, flesh and blood people.

Mr. McGurn suggests that we are sides of a coin. It is an idea which deserves more discussion.

Physician, Heal Thyself.

Republican Ron Paul will not endorse John McCain for President. That’s his right of course, but it still leaves a bad odor. In fact, I would have to say that it’s a classic case of sour grapes.

The Congressman says that he wants to engender greater support for third parties and again, that’s his prerogative. Maybe he is truly acting on a principle he believes in deeply. Yet it smacks of that foolish consistency which ultimately condemns libertarians and all third party candidates and voters to second class electoral status. When you demand absolute and unyielding adherence to a complete set of ideals you place yourself in jeopardy of never getting any of those ideals in place.

We live in an imperfect world. We can’t get everything we want; there are too many compteting factors working against us. We must compromise (except, of course, on the most basic and essential questions) or we will not move an inch, we will not progress. It’s a point which took me years to concede; still, it’s the way things are, and if we aren’t dealing in reality, what are we doing?

If the Founders had thought the way modern libertarians do, there would be no United States today. Think, Mr. Paul, where might you be without the good ol’ U. S. of A. In a gulag, perhaps, or under house arrest in China? Or, likely, I must believe, somewhere worse? As Ben Franklin said of himself and his peers, ‘We’re not demigods; we’re men, nothing more, doing the best we can under trying circumstances.’

Try a little harder to understand that. Then let's see exactly how much effect you can have on the greater society.