Some dialogues spawned by a recent bit on legalizing prostitution reminded me of a political reality: Every one of us has some libertarian flowing through our veins.
I have no problem claiming to be libertarian-leaning, despite my overt conservatism. Our founding fathers believed in liberty, though they also believed that laws were necessary. They believed, however, that *religion* would lead to self-restriction so that government would not need so much to interfere with liberty. Unfortunately, we've moved far from both the religious reliance and libertarian leanings of our forebears.
We are of different minds as to the second part of your comment. Some of the FFs were deists, who didn't believe in an interventional god. As in, they were about as atheistic as could be at that time. There is a range across the FFs, but it's no accident that they designed a radically secular government in an era where the Church - whichever it might be - was invariably intertwined with government.
I also don't believe that belief is necessary for good behavior or a moral compass, but that's a deep dive best left for another time :)
I think we're closer than you realize - I know they weren't all Christian (nor did I imply such). They did all believe in a God, however, and they did believe religion was necessary.
We do differ in that, I believe they did expect religion to be intertwined with government - they just didn't want government intertwined with religion. They intentionally refused a religious test for elected office because there were too many different denominations/sects (whatever you want to call the divisions), and they didn't want any requirement that would exclude one in favor of another. Don't forget though, they wrote the First Amendment to provide freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* it.
Another great piece, Peter. I will now go read “legalizing prostitution”. I recall when I was a clerk in the US Army they had a field manual titled “Suppression of Prostitution”. The main driver was that prostitution transmits diseases to the troops and can render them combat ineffective. When you talk about legalizing or decriminalizing a particular activity, does that automatically imply with or without subsequent governmental regulation? BTW, still waiting for that one issue on which we disagree ... 😁
We could theorize about reg vs no-reg, but that's always just armchair talk, because it's guaranteed to be regulated to some degree. The problem, as with pot regulation, is if the regulation is so onerous that it keeps the black market viable.
Power (government or private) falls roughly into three buckets: Force, Process, and Influence.
I find libertarianism does a good job in addressing use/abuse of force through the non-aggression principal. But the philosophy doesn't do a great job navigating use/abuse of process or especially influence.
One of the axioms of libertarian thought seems to be, "All government power is ultimately force." Recent events have proven this isn't true. Consider the victory for free speech that was Citizen's United. Also consider that the free speech rights of private entities are being used by the left to justify voluntary collusion between social media companies and gov't to influence the public and curtail individual free speech.
Libertarianism needs to develop a more comprehensive philosophy of power that better addresses the abuse of soft power in curtailing liberty.
I'm not sure how that last bit would look. Libertarianism is pretty comprehensive and internally consistent, with the arguments (arguments, rather than denunciations) being either about nitty-gritty stuff or about how best to move things along.
As to the second part of your second para, I covered that some time back. Free speech rights and rules change when an entity becomes 'government,' either as an agent of the State or via coercion by the State. I think the Court is in the process of sorting some of that out, in favor of smacking the government down.
In 2016, Gary Johnson was that rare Libertarian Party candidate who amounted to more than the answer to a trivia question or election night round-off error. But there was a lot of grumbling that he wasn’t “pure” enough. And lately the LP seems to be moving more towards the “Ivory Soap” litmus test.
I really think that the path to libertarian (or Libertarian) political success is not through shrill anarcho-capitalist rhetoric, but with a friendly “here’s how your life could be better without the obstacles the government puts in your way”.
Guilty as charged. I do not fall into any of our political parties, and most often profess to "lean Libertarian". (It seems odd to me that Libertarians would even consider themselves as members of a party). But somewhere between 100% tyranny and anarchy lies peoples law, that mythical balance point where power is under control of the people, and government is allowed just enough to provide security, justice, and good order. And no more. Sadly, too many are happy to give all the power which government says it requires to provide those things. Additionally, they wish it to provide equal outcomes. The desires may differ between parties, but the reality is the same, cede power to government to shape the world the way I think it should be. This seems to be a growing, not shrinking phenomenon, and one where we seem past the tipping point. In the end, no "side will get what they wish, and the government will then tell you what you should be wishing for.
I have no problem claiming to be libertarian-leaning, despite my overt conservatism. Our founding fathers believed in liberty, though they also believed that laws were necessary. They believed, however, that *religion* would lead to self-restriction so that government would not need so much to interfere with liberty. Unfortunately, we've moved far from both the religious reliance and libertarian leanings of our forebears.
We are of different minds as to the second part of your comment. Some of the FFs were deists, who didn't believe in an interventional god. As in, they were about as atheistic as could be at that time. There is a range across the FFs, but it's no accident that they designed a radically secular government in an era where the Church - whichever it might be - was invariably intertwined with government.
I also don't believe that belief is necessary for good behavior or a moral compass, but that's a deep dive best left for another time :)
I think we're closer than you realize - I know they weren't all Christian (nor did I imply such). They did all believe in a God, however, and they did believe religion was necessary.
We do differ in that, I believe they did expect religion to be intertwined with government - they just didn't want government intertwined with religion. They intentionally refused a religious test for elected office because there were too many different denominations/sects (whatever you want to call the divisions), and they didn't want any requirement that would exclude one in favor of another. Don't forget though, they wrote the First Amendment to provide freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* it.
Agree that the deep dive is best left for another time. If you'd like my perspective on the FF's belief that religion was necessary, however, you can read it here: https://curetsky.substack.com/p/trading-liberty-for-license
Another great piece, Peter. I will now go read “legalizing prostitution”. I recall when I was a clerk in the US Army they had a field manual titled “Suppression of Prostitution”. The main driver was that prostitution transmits diseases to the troops and can render them combat ineffective. When you talk about legalizing or decriminalizing a particular activity, does that automatically imply with or without subsequent governmental regulation? BTW, still waiting for that one issue on which we disagree ... 😁
We could theorize about reg vs no-reg, but that's always just armchair talk, because it's guaranteed to be regulated to some degree. The problem, as with pot regulation, is if the regulation is so onerous that it keeps the black market viable.
Power (government or private) falls roughly into three buckets: Force, Process, and Influence.
I find libertarianism does a good job in addressing use/abuse of force through the non-aggression principal. But the philosophy doesn't do a great job navigating use/abuse of process or especially influence.
One of the axioms of libertarian thought seems to be, "All government power is ultimately force." Recent events have proven this isn't true. Consider the victory for free speech that was Citizen's United. Also consider that the free speech rights of private entities are being used by the left to justify voluntary collusion between social media companies and gov't to influence the public and curtail individual free speech.
Libertarianism needs to develop a more comprehensive philosophy of power that better addresses the abuse of soft power in curtailing liberty.
I'm not sure how that last bit would look. Libertarianism is pretty comprehensive and internally consistent, with the arguments (arguments, rather than denunciations) being either about nitty-gritty stuff or about how best to move things along.
As to the second part of your second para, I covered that some time back. Free speech rights and rules change when an entity becomes 'government,' either as an agent of the State or via coercion by the State. I think the Court is in the process of sorting some of that out, in favor of smacking the government down.
Another great column!
In 2016, Gary Johnson was that rare Libertarian Party candidate who amounted to more than the answer to a trivia question or election night round-off error. But there was a lot of grumbling that he wasn’t “pure” enough. And lately the LP seems to be moving more towards the “Ivory Soap” litmus test.
I really think that the path to libertarian (or Libertarian) political success is not through shrill anarcho-capitalist rhetoric, but with a friendly “here’s how your life could be better without the obstacles the government puts in your way”.
Guilty as charged. I do not fall into any of our political parties, and most often profess to "lean Libertarian". (It seems odd to me that Libertarians would even consider themselves as members of a party). But somewhere between 100% tyranny and anarchy lies peoples law, that mythical balance point where power is under control of the people, and government is allowed just enough to provide security, justice, and good order. And no more. Sadly, too many are happy to give all the power which government says it requires to provide those things. Additionally, they wish it to provide equal outcomes. The desires may differ between parties, but the reality is the same, cede power to government to shape the world the way I think it should be. This seems to be a growing, not shrinking phenomenon, and one where we seem past the tipping point. In the end, no "side will get what they wish, and the government will then tell you what you should be wishing for.