Even though I have to squint when I read his site, with its itty-bitty sugar-ant type, John Schwenkler made me rethink my uncritical approval of Huckabee's swipe at libertarianism. I completely agree with Huckabee that the kind of conservatism that feels no social responsibility -- especially not to future generations -- is no good. I am too quick to grinch about libertarians, because (in my view) they exalt choice, not what is chosen, to an unhealthy degree. But Schwenkler's posts remind me that in a pluralistic society like ours, some accomodation with libertarianism is probably the best chance we neotrads have of carving out a communal life for ourselves.
Check out this post, in which he says that "Crunchy Cons" is too glibly critical of the market, and fails to account for the role the state played in creating industrial agriculture and the like. It's a fair criticism (oh, to be able to revise three years later!). Excerpt:
This last point is what makes me, unlike e.g. Helen, so hopeful for the possibilities of a communitarian-libertarian alliance. If, as is surely possible because what they’d be saying will be true, the Paulites and the Neo-Trads can convince the fast-growing homeschooling, home-birthing, raw milk-drinking, organic-farming, and backyard-gardening segments of the population that the State is their enemy and not their friend, that they’ll be best able to live the lives they deserve if the gummint just stays out of their hair, then we will have the makings of a movement. Call them the Farmer’s Market Republicans, or maybe the Joel Salatin Coalition. Just watch your backs, folks - they’re on the move.
Incidentally, I commend to your attention Schwenkler's short essay on why the Republican Party needs to lose. Excerpt:
If the record of the Bush Administration and its Congressional cheerleaders is any indication of its health, the American conservative movement in its present state is one that needs to grind to a halt, to take stock of what has gone so horribly wrong, to purge itself of the bad elements and seize upon what little is left of the good. Such transformation is, of course, not easy under any circumstances, but it is the sort of thing that is simply impossible for a party in power to undergo.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Random thoughts:
1. Border inspections: I readily concede that inspections, searches, surveillance, etc., are not necessarily infringements of _liberty_ per se. The infringement lies not in the inspection itself, so much as the (hypothetical) requirement that every container submit to inspection. This necessarily implies the illegality of importing uninspected containers.
2. Detention of enemy aliens: I honestly don't know whether this was effective at increasing security during WWII. If it wasn't, I'll agree that such detentions do not fit the paradigm of a security-liberty tradeoff.
3. While I do believe that a tradeoff between liberty & security can exist, I also agree that not every law necessarily increases security (or safety), and that many such laws can be counterproductive in that regard. As I mentioned in one of my 8:39 post, a tradeoff between liberty & security only exists with "well-designed" laws (by which I mean laws that do in fact increase security - not silly security theater like TSA).
4. I agree that privacy & liberty aren't the same thing, even though the former may augment the latter. Brin's "Transparent Society" takes this distinction & runs with it - he envisions a system wherein a _lack_ of privacy actually helps reinforce liberty.
Again, I am not a legalist. There are plenty of bad laws (with some of which I have had the dubious pleasure of dealing, professionally), and there are plenty of good laws badly applied or enforced. I wish people would pay attention to the gestalt, because it is the process and its dynamics that are important, not their little, limited and isolated world views.
Exactly. People need to start from the top and work down. The problem isn't, for example, police with radar guns laying in wait on the sides of roads with too-low speed limits. The problem is places with speed limits that are too low. (Often deliberately, for revenue purposes, which is something that state governments should step in and do something about.) Don't go passing laws that say that cops have to be visible for 100 yards or whatever that stupid rule is.
Likewise, the problem isn't police breaking down doors and shooting up the place because they think it's a drug den. That is, in fact, the only logical way to deal with a drug den if they wish to preserve evidence. If society doesn't think that's a good solution, if it thinks there is too high a risk that they will break down the wrong door and kill innnocent old ladies (like happened in Atlanta a year or so ago and got people upset), they need to stop worrying about the cop's behavior and start worrying about the inherent problem of criminalizing actions without victims, which require the police to behave in ways like that to catch people in the act.
But, no, it's all 'We need to put limits on the police' and 'It's all a problem with the police', blah blah blah. No. Laws are not made to be broken. If you don't like how the law is enforced, change the law, don't cripple the enforcement. It is very damaging for society to have laws that society is not willing to enforce.
When those claiming to espouse Christian beliefs come crashing down on libertarianism, I like to point out a few things that God himself had to say to us.
"You shall not steal."
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's."
Simply put, in a free society like the US, where we the people are indirectly responsible for the amount of taxation laid on others, voting to take from others against their wishes is tantamount to theft. This is not a "give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's," situation because there is no Ceasar. In a free society there is only us. If you wish to assume the role of Ceasar, that is your free will (Which by the way, is the greatest gift God gave us) but search your soul, and see if you believe Ceasar is in heaven.
Christ did not say, "take from others, and be generous with what is not your own." Christ taugh to be generous of yourself. Christ did not say, "force others to act in a way which I find pleaseing." Christ asked us to act in a manner which pleases Him. If God himself is unwilling to force men to act as he desires, how can you belive that he wishes you to?
The United States is not a missionary church, and it should not be treated as one. God warned us not to attempt to make a heaven on earth, instead asking us to work for his glory as individuals.
Just a few thoughts after some prayer and reflection.
Thank you for reading.
When those claiming to espouse Christian beliefs come crashing down on libertarianism, I like to point out a few things that God himself had to say to us.
"You shall not steal."
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's."
Simply put, in a free society like the US, where we the people are indirectly responsible for the amount of taxation laid on others, voting to take from others against their wishes is tantamount to theft. This is not a "give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's," situation because there is no Ceasar. In a free society there is only us. If you wish to assume the role of Ceasar, that is your free will (Which by the way, is the greatest gift God gave us) but search your soul, and see if you believe Ceasar is in heaven.
Christ did not say, "take from others, and be generous with what is not your own." Christ taugh to be generous of yourself. Christ did not say, "force others to act in a way which I find pleaseing." Christ asked us to act in a manner which pleases Him. If God himself is unwilling to force men to act as he desires, how can you belive that he wishes you to?
The United States is not a missionary church, and it should not be treated as one. God warned us not to attempt to make a heaven on earth, instead asking us to work for his glory as individuals.
Just a few thoughts after some prayer and reflection.
Thank you for reading.
"Interestingly, the Greek polis in ancient times appears to have experienced similar problems when the polulation exceeded 5,000. It is usually when they turned autocratic."
I think the 5,000 referred only to free adult male citizens. Probably the total population was closer to 50,000, which Aristotle considered the ideal size for a city.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.