I'm not usually a fan of libertarians. Objectivists are my least favorite: what started as a mild irritation with Ayn Rand grew over the years into a full-blown allergy. I also have significant problems with the kind of Christian libertarianism that attempts to find libertarian principles somewhere in the Bible; in general, it seems that, for those types, “Christian” is just a belief that finds its place within a larger hardcore libertarian framework. (Normally, I'd provide direct links, but I'm not sure I want to name names in this case.)
The mainstream of libertarianism has always seemed several degrees better than these two branches. Say what you will, at least it's an ethos.
Then John Schwenkler, who may or may not be a libertarian, comes along and makes it sound pretty good. Almost good enough to make me forget my bad experiences with libertarians I have known...
“The crucial impulse that motivates the libertarian is one that aims for what could be called a political modesty: an insistence on allowing the state to infringe on personal liberty only when it is absolutely necessary, with the understanding that the consequences of governmental action can often be more severe than those of the actions of individuals. This is not a view that denies the importance of virtue or treats liberty as an end in itself; it is, rather, simply a view that insists that the ultimate arbiter of a person’s actions should usually be that person him or herself.”
Which serves as a reminder of how traditionalists got hooked up with libertarians in the first place. What self-respecting trad-con could resist political modesty? But then one remembers that libertarians usually hold to a very specific ideal of “personal liberty,” one that should properly be moderated by an acknowledgment of the very real aspects of human dependence. There are many people—old people, sick people, handicapped people—who cannot ultimately arbitrate their own actions, and almost all of us will join the first of those groups some day. (I suspect that this acknowledgment is one of the things that makes Mr. Schwenkler a semi-libertarian.) Perhaps it's my more-or-less steady diet of MacIntyre over the last few years, but I'm not willing to grant that the libertarian view of human independence holds generally. And as for the Ron Paul economic program, well, I'm pretty sure that you can't get there from here.
(Of course, it may be applicable in a number of special cases, e.g., marijuana, trans-fat, tobacco, and libertarians can offer a few insights into the process of government more generally. I'm thinking here of strong views of federalism, or perhaps the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, rather than the Rothbardian or Austrian approach.)
~~~~~
On a related note, I've traded Andrew Sullivan out for John Schwenkler's Upturned Earth on the blog roll; I'm just not interested in reading Sullivan's histrionic rants right now. Seeing him wax sanctimonious on Bill Maher was just depressing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thanks very much for the link and the kind words. For what it's worth I think that the kind of dependence that is exemplified by the elderly in particular is one that libertarianism can accommodate: the key point here will be the hope that it is the elderly person's family that takes care of him or her, rather than the state, when the person's own resources (and/or mental or physical acumen) don't suffice. Ideally the same sort of thing will be able to take place in the case of the sick or disabled: support from family, community, church, or charitable organization will be able to fill the necessary roles better than the state ever could.
More generally, I think the claim that libertarians deny the reality of dependence (and the virtues thereof) or the roles that society/community/culture play in making us who we are: it was, for example, the libertarians who spoke out the most strongly in favor of the rights of the FLDS church over the (fake) child abuse scandal. The key point is just that the state (which can't easily be left, which has a very specific sort of coercive power, etc.) shouldn't be filling these roles. Then again, maybe my own (sort-of) libertarianism is a non-standard sort; I really do think, though, that the caricature that Joe Carter drew was an unfair one.
"I also have significant problems with the kind of Christian libertarianism that attempts to find libertarian principles somewhere in the Bible;"
I had the same problem, and so reversed the process to try to find a political position within my Christianity. My conclusions are similar to the Schwenkler quote, although the path may be a bit different.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/09/christian-view-of-church-and-state.html
Post a Comment