Thoughts on Libertarianism

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

An anarchist iiiiiiissss, by definition, not a libertarian.

[/quote]

Seems you’ve missed some of the fine print orion my boy. I didn’t realise you’re a true believer. My advice is stop investing in gold, start reading history and philosophy and question everything.[/quote]

So, I will take that as “yes, now that my blatant misuse of words and my garbled definition have been shot out of the water, I will resort to fluff”.

Understandable, though not especially intellectually honest or daring.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
He may have had a religious upbringing, but it sure wasn’t Christian if this is the result. Christians are commanded to voluntarily and privately give to the poor and needy. Themselves and THROUGH THE CHURCH AS THE CHURCH sees fit in the community. Nowhere EVER even once is it suggested that the saints are to send money to Rome to care for the poor. Finances to the body of Christ are a sacred blessing to be used in service to God in accordance with His Word. Not at the behest of God hating pagan politicians.

In the OT the state was the church in Israel. A theocratic arrangement no longer existing. Jesus Himself told Pilate under interrogation that His kingdom was not of this world.[/quote]

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

Read more: John Kenneth Galbraith - The modern conservative is...

My point is directed at those claiming to be Christ like

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@tmay - yes you are right. Von Mises was a miniarchist. I’m a Burkean conservative as were the founding fathers - or at the least classical liberalists.
[/quote]

No they cannot have been burkean conservativs, thats impossible and here is why:

The us federation where founded in 1787.

The french revelution started in 1789 and lasted for several years.

Burke got famous by writing a book that where critical to the french revolution and that
is after the founding of the federation in america.

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@tmay - yes you are right. Von Mises was a miniarchist. I’m a Burkean conservative as were the founding fathers - or at the least classical liberalists.
[/quote]

No they cannot have been burkean conservativs, thats impossible and here is why:

The us federation where founded in 1787.

The french revelution started in 1789 and lasted for several years.

Burke got famous by writing a book that where critical to the french revolution and that
is after the founding of the federation in america. [/quote]

That may or may not be the case, I don’t know enough about Burke to say otherwise, but that’s not a valid criticism. Just because a certain political philosophy didn’t have a name (or was under a different name) at the time doesn’t mean that it was impossible to carry that particular philosophy. If that were the case (that the name precedes the philosophy), then no new ideas could ever come about.

One could be a Burkean conservative without being aware that their outlook on life is called (or will be called) Burkean conservatism.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

…I’m a Burkean conservative as were the founding fathers - or at the least classical liberalists.

[/quote]

I have a question for the crowd.

Since I think we can agree that the Founding Fathers were not true libertarians but rather as you mentioned more along the lines of Burkean conservatives who did the very best they could at the time and introduced one of the most remarkable documents in human history…what went wrong?

In other words how come they didn’t build in enough safeguards, or what could they have done differently, to keep us from:

  1. the massive amount of judicial precedents, case law and legislating from the bench

  2. the massive amount of federal intrusion into every nook and cranny of Americans’ lives that I believe began with the Civil War and was thoroughly enhanced during the New Deal, WWII and Johnson’s Great Society.

  3. the erosion of personal liberty and states’ rights (that the the 9th and 10th Amendments should’ve protected)

Did they do enough?

Should they have taken a more libertarian approach?[/quote]

The Constitution may have been a step forward for mankind at the time, but times have changed. No document, no matter how revolutionary, will be adequate for contemporary society ad-infinitum. Life is dynamic, and so must be our views on it. Even if the founding fathers had done things differently, all that would change is where the loopholes are found.

Also, the early America’s were very libertarian and any constitution would have made America less libertarian, not more.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Since I think we can agree that the Founding Fathers were not true libertarians but rather as you mentioned more along the lines of Burkean conservatives who did the very best they could at the time and introduced one of the most remarkable documents in human history…what went wrong?

In other words how come they didn’t build in enough safeguards, or what could they have done differently, to keep us from:

  1. the massive amount of judicial precedents, case law and legislating from the bench

  2. the massive amount of federal intrusion into every nook and cranny of Americans’ lives that I believe began with the Civil War and was thoroughly enhanced during the New Deal, WWII and Johnson’s Great Society.

  3. the erosion of personal liberty and states’ rights (that the the 9th and 10th Amendments should’ve protected)

Did they do enough?

Should they have taken a more libertarian approach?[/quote]

No, and several things have contributed to the situation described:

  1. Explosion of Commerce, Shrinking of the Nation. Think of all the rules/regulations a state would have in place to handle commercial transactions (even antiquated ones). As commerce grew, and became more prevalent over state lines because of improvements in technology, transportation, communication, markets, etc., the federal government was always destined to take on more of the responsibilities of handling the role typically handled by an individual state. This was inevitable, and is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It has been used by others to try and justify other kinds of intervention by the federal government - but that is a separate issue.

  2. Industrialization. So-called conservatives never seem to appreciate the profound effect on the social fabric that industrialization had. Industrialization transformed civic life radically. People (and families) who spent most of their time at home - and fed themselves there, got educated there, etc. - now were headed off to cities to spend most of their day with non-family members doing industrial work. Children were beginning to get their education from someone other than family members and community institutions like churches. As such, a ton of issues related to this “displacement” (for lack of a better word) were in need of addressing.

This is a lengthy topic, and one that so-called conservatives (as I said) get wrong over and over - too many conservatives are now, when looking back, completely indifferent to the radical impact industrialization had on society - when true conservatives should be, er, the exact opposite of indifferent when society is becoming radically altered by an event (that is what makes them, er, conservative, but I digress) - and only care that industrialization created lots of material wealth.

  1. Social libertinism. This might be the worst of all. Society is like a human body - when something swells (like a society’s government}, that is an indication that there is a sickness underneath. Government has grown to respond to the failures in other aspects of society, simply stated. Used to be, in a free, liberal society, government had a perfectly good and health role - it stood along side other crucial institutions in society to promote Good Society. But government had its place, and the other institutions - family, church, communities, fraternities, unions, markets, etc. - had their place. They were balanced against one another, and so long as each one was strong, the balance was maintained (or would be, in theory).

But then there came the assault on these other institutions, and when they started failing, government stepped in to perform functions these other institutions no longer did (and they weren’t fulfilling not because they couldn’t, but because they had been discredited as being legitimate to do so). Then came the Social Libertines, for lack of a better label. Broadly, society was nothing more than a priordial prison denying the individual his freedom to do whatever he wanted. Family was deemed a racket. Sexual customs were mean-spirited and oppressive. Consumption was the new God, and a kind of hedonism was called synonymous with liberty.

That went for many so-called “conservatives”, too, who now couldn’t give a rat’s ass about culture - the only thing that mattered now was economics, and anything that stood in the way of someone consuming whatever they wanted (in the broad sense of the word) was unjust under the New Libertinism. This point goes back to my earlier point on idustrialization - arguably, this new arrangement was having a deleterious effect on family life, but no matter - life was filled with more widgets, and so consumption was going up, up, up, and the government (as an agent for society) had no right to try and remedy these deleterious social effects, praise be to the new God Consumption.

So, now, with our moral architecture in tatters, between sex (“I want to have sex whenever and with whomoever I want and no one has any right to make me feel bad about it!”) to drugs (“If it feels good, do it, and one no one has any right to make me feel bad about it!”) or conspicuous consumption, to child-raising, to all sorts of conduct where the New Truth was the individual gets to define what’s right in every situation for himself and society must yield to that appetite, no matter how pernicious the social consequences are, we’ve created a sickness that would ordinarily be addressed by other institutions…but the New Truth doesn’t allow these other institutions any credit, since they stand in the way of the individual and his freedom, so the government grows to become the new “family”, the new “church”, the new “club”, etc.

The Founding Fathers didn’t build a government for a people that acts like this, so they didn’t screw it up at the beginning. They expected a reasonably virtuous people that understood liberty as something earned, not given. They recognized, as did Burke, that people deserve (and can handle liberty) in direct proportion to be self-disciplined and virtuous, and when people cease acting that way, they forfeit liberty.

That is exactly what has happened. Look, people will always have to be governed to ensure good results for civilization’s sake. Again, channeling Burke, if that governance can’t come from within, it will definitely come from without. And look around. That is exactly why we have the situation we have today.

And on the original questions - no, libertarianism isn’t classical liberalism. Look at the barons of classical liberalism that influenced the United States - Adam Smith, David Hume, Locke, etc. - there’s nothing in their writing or thoughts that the one true rule is absolute maximum individual liberty and a society that doesn’t promote that is presumed to be suspect. They thought very differently - they were realists about human behavior and recognized important natural tensions between order and liberty in a healthy, free society.

No, libertarianism is the child of Rousseau and other continental philosophers who have a fondness for shredding society’s blueprints and starting anew with abstractions. Libertarians are descendants of the French Revolution, not the American one.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And on the original questions - no, libertarianism isn’t classical liberalism. Look at the barons of classical liberalism that influenced the United States - Adam Smith, David Hume, Locke, etc. - there’s nothing in their writing or thoughts that the one true rule is absolute maximum individual liberty and a society that doesn’t promote that is presumed to be suspect. They thought very differently - they were realists about human behavior and recognized important natural tensions between order and liberty in a healthy, free society.

No, libertarianism is the child of Rousseau and other continental philosophers who have a fondness for shredding society’s blueprints and starting anew with abstractions. Libertarians are descendants of the French Revolution, not the American one.[/quote]

Pffft.

Lost me at Rosseau…

[quote]orion wrote:

Pffft.

Lost me at Rosseau…[/quote]

Why would I care?

[quote]florelius wrote:

No they cannot have been burkean conservativs, thats impossible and here is why:

The us federation where founded in 1787.

The french revelution started in 1789 and lasted for several years.

Burke got famous by writing a book that where critical to the french revolution and that
is after the founding of the federation in america. [/quote]

The ideas that Burke championed were incubating before he wrote his seminal book. The Founding Fathers were part of that thinking.

I of course agree with Thunderbolts assessment EXCEPT, I view everything he said as symptomatic of a nation abandoning the God whose providence even Jefferson declared as necessary.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness<<<>>> And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.[/quote] Jefferson wrote that and while a hypocrite to be sure, he KNEW that’s what would fly amongst the citizenry with which he was quite familiar. Divine providence is, I promise you, the very doctrine I am incessantly preaching here.

Sloth is quite welcome. Despite our great differences we have always been in one accord in these waters.[/quote]

Jefferson was no hypocrite in this instance. He was a Deist - which had a different definition then compared to now. Deism, especially the brand he practiced, did not preclude referencing “Providence.”

Now if you want him labeled a hypocrite for participating in (Christian) church services held in the Capitol and yet decrying some of the basic tenets of Christianity then your argument holds.[/quote]Jefferson, like Franklin, suffered from chronic “do as I say not as I do” syndrome. They both recognized Christian morality as essential for the survival and flourishing of the fledgling nation while exempting themselves by their whoredom and fathering of illegitimate children. They knew that their personal morality practiced en masse would lead to… what we have today. They counted on others carrying the moral load for them. No purer definition of hypocrisy exists.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This country was founded on what amounted to Christian libertarianism.
[/quote]

Christianity/classical liberalism. Not libertarianism.
[/quote]

The difference being what?[/quote]

Classical liberalism = small government

Libertarianism = no government utopianism.[/quote]

Your terms are confused.[/quote]

False. The Democratic Party was originally founded on what is the current Republicans’ party platform, a.k.a., small government.

CS

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness<<<>>> And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.[/quote] Jefferson wrote that and while a hypocrite to be sure, he KNEW that’s what would fly amongst the citizenry with which he was quite familiar. Divine providence is, I promise you, the very doctrine I am incessantly preaching here.

Sloth is quite welcome. Despite our great differences we have always been in one accord in these waters.[/quote]

Jefferson was no hypocrite in this instance. He was a Deist - which had a different definition then compared to now. Deism, especially the brand he practiced, did not preclude referencing “Providence.”

Now if you want him labeled a hypocrite for participating in (Christian) church services held in the Capitol and yet decrying some of the basic tenets of Christianity then your argument holds.[/quote]Jefferson, like Franklin, suffered from chronic “do as I say not as I do” syndrome. They both recognized Christian morality as essential for the survival and flourishing of the fledgling nation while exempting themselves by their whoredom and fathering of illegitimate children. They knew that their personal morality practiced en masse would lead to… what we have today. They counted on others carrying the moral load for them. No purer definition of hypocrisy exists.
[/quote]

Ah yes, the good ol’ days, when the inferior races were taught their places by god fearing Christians preaching from the “good book”. Personally, I’m dumbfounded as to how the nations of the east have been able to limp along for as long as they have without the superior teachings of Christianity. Pffft, we all know that civilization follows the sun, right?

Big sigh…If only we could convert the world to Christianity and rid ourselves of all those inferior gods/religions, that would certainly fix everything. /sarcasm

Hey look! Sparky’s back!!! His comprehension hasn’t improved though

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I view everything he said as symptomatic of a nation abandoning the God whose providence even Jefferson declared as necessary.[/quote]

Nu uh all the founding fathers were atheists—every one of them. I know this is true because I read it on T Nation.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

No they cannot have been burkean conservativs, thats impossible and here is why:

The us federation where founded in 1787.

The french revelution started in 1789 and lasted for several years.

Burke got famous by writing a book that where critical to the french revolution and that
is after the founding of the federation in america. [/quote]

The ideas that Burke championed were incubating before he wrote his seminal book. The Founding Fathers were part of that thinking. [/quote]

Thats probably right, I am only nitpicking here. Burkean-ish would be a more correct definition of the founding fathers if they where so close to Burke in political philosophy.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you want to understand the early colonies you need to understand British history and the English revolution. Cromwell banished much of the aristocracy and many fled to America where they largely settled in Virginia. The puritans who had expelled them were themselves exiled after the monarchy was restored. They largely settled in Massachusetts. Seems to be some revisionism or forgetfulness on the part of some American historians in this area.[/quote]That’s fine, but by the time of the revolution and the convention there was enough homogeneity regarding major theological issues so as to make way for the founding of a soon to be rapidly rising superpower. A divided people could not have launched this nation and what, pray tell, is more divisive than religious differences. I need sleep. 6 am tomorrow is coming soon.

[/quote]

I think it had more to do with political differences than theological. Pretty much everyone was a Christian in those days and the founding fathers were more concerned with ensuring that no one denomination could gain political ascendency.[/quote]We were sayin essentially the same thing here. BTW, I wouldn’t be averse to publicly helping those in “legitimate” need in itself, but that is one of the slipperiest slopes of all as we are at this very moment living out. Without privately held morality and ethics of a certain sort what the United States is today wallowing in is the utterly inevitable result.

EDIT: One very important part of your post is the denomination thing. That is exactly right. While formally all religions must be included in the general principles they set forth, they very clearly were referring to Christianity. The non establishment clause was as you say a way to prevent baptists or Presbyterians for instance from becoming the national denomination. Not to make sure Hinduism, Judaism and Islam had an equal standing. It’s like leaving the closet unlocked because you know your child won’t open it. (Yes, I’m aware of quotes by Jefferson) I don’t think they envisioned a time when they would have to deal with that.

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@tmay - yes you are right. Von Mises was a miniarchist. I’m a Burkean conservative as were the founding fathers - or at the least classical liberalists.
[/quote]

No they cannot have been burkean conservativs, thats impossible and here is why:

The us federation where founded in 1787.

The french revelution started in 1789 and lasted for several years.

Burke got famous by writing a book that where critical to the french revolution and that
is after the founding of the federation in america. [/quote]

That may or may not be the case, I don’t know enough about Burke to say otherwise, but that’s not a valid criticism. Just because a certain political philosophy didn’t have a name (or was under a different name) at the time doesn’t mean that it was impossible to carry that particular philosophy. If that were the case (that the name precedes the philosophy), then no new ideas could ever come about.

One could be a Burkean conservative without being aware that their outlook on life is called (or will be called) Burkean conservatism. [/quote]

^^ What he said.

Has its origins in Toryism also.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I view everything he said as symptomatic of a nation abandoning the God whose providence even Jefferson declared as necessary.[/quote]

Nu uh all the founding fathers were atheists—every one of them. I know this is true because I read it on T Nation.[/quote]I heard they were all hyper-ecumenists who dreamed of having equal numbers of all religions represented here if they couldn’t just avoid God altogether.