The American Thinker misses the point of Libertarianism

Jeremy Egerer doesn't like Libertarian thought, that's clear. But his dislike is not conditioned by the economic arguments of the philosophy:

I have no problem with the idea of man as a logical being (although I believe he's frequently blinded by desire), nor do I find wealth and free markets offensive. . . .

What Egerer finds offensive is that Libertarian philosophy--starkly painted, as by Ludwig von Mises--has no need for God. It allows room for God--or at least the belief in God--but it has no need for the Deity:

Mises didn't revere our Founding Fathers; he intended to establish a new form of society, antithetical to our founding principles and Christianity.

(You see, within Libertarian philosophy, God is only necessary if belief in Her is necessary for your individual happiness.)

Egerer objects to Libertarian thought because he is effectively an old-line William Buckley conservative, harkening back to the days of the late 1950s and early 1960s when Libertarians were allowed in as the junior member of the three-legged stool that supported the Republican Party: traditionalism, cold-warrior-ism, and libertarianism.

Conservatives liked Libertarianism only for what it said about fiscal conservatism and limited government, and they intended to use traditionalism (which was really a covert term for the Judeo-Christian tradition) to provide the moral bounds that government wouldn't, couldn't, or shouldn't.

Egerer is most self-revealing when he talks about the appeal to patriotism, which is, to him, the appeal to war:

One may of course say that men, living under a libertarian government, aren't necessarily bound to fight simply for the reasons the government says they fight; we say they can fight in the name of family, or friends, or even in the name of God. But subjectivity is a poor banner under which to die, a foundation comprising anything but the meaningful.

This misses the point that "under a libertarian government" men would not be asked to fight except in direct defense of their country or their homes. The fact that this would make a truly Libertarian society more peaceful and less oppressive to its own citizenry and other nations is lost on him.

But it is chiefly Mises' atheism that appalls Egerer. He is either unwilling or unable to accept the idea that a society not based on God-given morality is pointless:

Unalienable rights require a specific Deity. And while I wouldn't for one second infer that the state must form its own religion, religious principles are the foundation for any meaningful system of law, a common discernment between what is right and what seems right, regardless of whether or not what's right is pleasurable.

So because Libertarianism as a political philosophy does not require God, it is empty and meaningless:

What am I to make of Mises and libertarianism, or that ideology's adherents? In the end, though I find them destructive to Western civilization, I pity them. They seek civilization in earthly pleasure, and meaning in meaninglessness. I have a destiny, have a God, have glory, have unalienable rights and The Law, have incorruptible joy -- and should Pleasure ever stand between these and me, then with the Almighty's help, She will know where Her dominion ends. Take your stand where you may; I cannot but with my whole heart reject libertarianism.

Unfortunately, aside from his confusion of Libertarianism with a rejection of religion by individual Libertarians, Egerer also mistakes the point of the philosophy's insistence on human happiness as a worthwhile goal of society--willfully conflating "happiness" with "pleasure," a common misreading that converts Libertarians into hedonists.

If religion and your belief in God provides you with happiness and personal fulfillment, Mises insists (and Egerer rejects), then that's OK. But the person who finds happiness in completing fine woodwork, or drinking good liquor, or in collecting ladies' garters has no less a claim within society to the right to pursue that happiness.

This is the point that Thomas Jefferson makes in the Declaration of Independence: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"--and the point that Egerer so completely misses.

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?

New Warfare: I started my posts with a discussion.....

.....on Unrestricted warfare . The US Air force Institute for National Security Studies have developed a reasonable systems approach to deter non-state violent actors who they label as NSVA's. It is an exceptionally important report if we want to deter violent extremism and other potential violent actors that could threaten this nation and its security. It is THE report our political officials should be listening to to shape policy so that we do not become excessive in using force against those who do not agree with policy and dispute it with reason and normal non-violent civil disobedience. This report, should be carefully read by everyone really concerned with protecting civil liberties while deterring violent terrorism and I recommend if you are a professional you send your recommendations via e-mail at the link above so that either 1.) additional safeguards to civil liberties are included, or 2.) additional viable strategies can be used. Finally, one can only hope that politici

Search This Blog