Telling Libertarians By the Company They Keep in Social Policy Circles
June 19, 2008 · By Matthew
After last week’s stunning juxtaposition of the Prime Minister apologizing to Indian children who were sent to denomination-assisted government education facilities in which their human rights were terribly abused while a “human rights tribunal” essentially made a 2000 year-old religion illegal, and with this week’s news that the senate has now approved a bill which would take a way the God-given rights of parents to discipline their children, it could be quite easy to write on how these latest attempts by secularists to conform all of us in their image will only lead to disaster and the demolition of the free state of Canada that we all knew and loved. However, I think tonight it would be more constructive to examine a group that has helped to make this possible and which still has the power to reverse the trends if they were to reanalyze their thinking.
I’m talking of course (see title) about libertarians, or specifically about what libertarians are considered today. While the term could apply to many distinct schools of political thought, including the one that I subscribe to, the libertarian moniker in 2008 refers to one who is adamant about reducing government spending and intervention in the economy, while also subscribing to the secularist interpretation of human rights. I say this, instead of saying that they are “socially liberal” like libertarians like to describe themselves, because I’ve found that description to be a simple matter of opinion and not a quantifiable statement like one’s opinion on government spending levels can be.
As I said above, I consider myself a libertarian, but one of the Lord Acton (a 19th century Catholic and noble) brand, not of the modern rendition. Therefore, it’s fairly safe to say that I typically agree with most modern (secular) libertarians and find their reasoning to be typically sound on fiscal matters. I’ve spoken and debated with many over the years and have observed their frustration at many on The Left who like to believe that the economy is a macro-sized golden goose which you can feed government dollars and have it produce a “just society”. Many have lamented just how emotionally-based liberal arguments are and how they don’t hold up to the real world realities or mathematical proofs that we now know.
As such, it might come as a shock, but I find that libertarians too easily fall into the irrational and overtly emotional impulses of their liberal friends when it comes to the topics of drugs, abortion, marriage and the family’s role in society. In essence, I believe that modern libertarians have to answer a very difficult question which is why they tend to be onside with the likes of the NDP when it comes to issues like this, despite their dramatic opposition to that party’s attitudes in almost every other policy arena. Put another way, if it that if government endorsement of “gay marriage”, aborting fetus lives and marijuana for all is liberty, how did the NDP arrive at these conclusions and for the same reasons expressed at libertarians. Granted, a broken clock is right twice a day, but simple analogies don’t do justice to over a century of political philosophy development; either socialists and liberals are capable of spearheading liberty as they use national kangaroo courts to squash our speech freedoms, or modern libertarianism has gone astray.
After debating many libertarians, I have come to the conclusion that it is it the latter: when it comes to such issues, libertarians have let their angst for authority cloud their judgment and sense of natural order with emotional impulses, thus letting them arrive at the conclusions they do. Otherwise, why is it so well known that a great majority of self-described libertarians are pro-abortion, instead of pro-life? As I inferred above, if libertarians were naturally and neutrally socially liberal, shouldn’t a sizable minority (at the least) arrive at the conclusion that an unborn fetus’ right to life outweighed a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy that she played a pretty intimate part in creating? It’s too lopsided to be a simple matter of rights since both sides of the debate have a well-defended right they’re trying to argue in favour of. I hope that one day the libertarians in Canada see this as well, and begin to connect liberalism’s attack on free society with our destructive social policy and not in spite of it!
Matthew,
Your introduction is incomplete. You should say “the one that I subscribe to, the libertarian moniker in 2008 refers to one who is adamant about reducing government spending and intervention in the economy, BUT NOT REDUCING THEM COMPLETELY while also subscribing to the secularist interpretation of human rights.”
I point this out because I believe the confusion between your libertarianism and liberals and NDPers etc. etc. can be drawn specifically from analyzing WHY you stop short in your demands of reducing government intervention.
So, I ask you: what government control is acceptable and why?
Fair question: I would say that, at a minimum on which libertarians can agree without becoming anarchists, governments should act as an arena in which commerce and the dignity of the person can transpire (in other words, insure that we don’t have vikings coming over to burn down Bay St. on Tuesday). This should also encompass not changing the definitions of terms, or institutions. Hope this helps.
Two things:
First, there is no God-given right to spank. That makes me ill that you would suggest that and slander God’s reputation in that way.
I am opposed to that legislation as much as you but think for a split second before you give the trolls bait and misrepresent your faith. My reasons for opposing it is the intervention of the state far beyond the reasonable. It is unreasonable to assume that parents need to be policed so they do not use excessive force in disciplining children. Yes, there will always be abusers who need to be jailed - they can be charged for assault. Again, as in so many other cases of liberal over-legislating, our existing laws more than cover, if only they were enforced by police and convicted by judges.
Second, what really irks me about any discussion of liberty, a free society, and so on, is the utter absence of a discussion of the responsibilities that inevitably follow rights. Everyone wants to talk about their rights, but nobody wants to talk about their responsibilities. That is why I don’t consider myself a true libertarian - because every one of them that I have ever talked with has completely gone off the rails by disavowing any sense of responsibility as a society, culture or state for the welfare of one’s fellow man. Yes, Nanny-statism is out of control, but again, the reasonable should be the aim, not the total absolution of any level of responsibility for our neighbours. I for one WANT my neighbour to care about my kids’ well-being, instead of sitting back and saying, “Oh well. We live in a nation of liberty. It’s none of my business what they do with themselves, as long as it doesn’t affect me.” The callousness of the true libertarian is nauseating.
There. I’ve done being harsh. Continue.
On the three specific issues you identify, I don’t think you actually disagree much with libertarians as a group on two of them, and the third is more an issue of how you interpret scientific evidence than an issue of morality.
Re abortion, I know several pro-life libertarians, who want the process fully banned. They’re not a majority, but they’re a fairly sizeable group. If you ever want a rather unexpected conversation on the topic, talk to Kiley about it at a convention sometime.
Re gay marriage, the vast majority of libertarians are only “pro gay marriage” in the sense of preferring equality - we just think it’s the best patch to apply to a terrible legal framework, we don’t support it in and of itself. Given our druthers, we would have neither gay nor straight marriage in the government context - it’s not the government’s place to define and delineate personal relationships.
Re marijuana, I think it should have the same legal status as alcohol, since by all accounts its effects are similar. If I could be convinced that it’s actually as horrible and dangerous as the fear-mongers portray it as, then I’d quite possibly change my mind, but from all I’ve heard it’s just a less-lethal variety of alcohol.
Regarding your more general point, I don’t think that it’s always wrong to agree with NDPers. One of my fundamental political opinions is that most people approach politics in good faith, and that no view of a large group of opponents is coherent unless it can explain how intelligent, well-intentioned people believe what they do. In the case of the stereotypical New Democrat, it tends to stem from a terrible viewpoint on risk, and most of their errors flow from there. But that doesn’t mean that they’re invariably wrong, and it doesn’t mean that agreeing with them is always a mistake. You need a better case to prove me wrong than “You agree with those evil fellows over there!”.
Shane, I understand your concern however I’m going to reference the “spare the rod, spoil the child” verse on this one; physical discipline is clearly outlined in the Bible as not only legitimate, but necessary. You won’t find Christians being civilly disobedient often, but I think that if this bill becomes law, we’ll see a firsthand example since it would fall under the authority of God, the only legitimate authority over human government, Biblically speaking.
I think you bring up an excellent point with the responsibilities argument though and that is actually would I say to Alex re: drugs, since all drug consumption affects our ability to be responsible for our actions (something that alcohol can do in larger amounts — hence the “drunk in public” prohibitions). I think that the abortion one is still too disproportionately on the pro side though and that the marriage question comes down to a more fundamental issue of the government imposing new definitions over terms, period; I argue this one from the same position that I argue against liberalized divorce laws - just because the government says that a marriage contract isn’t *really* a contract does not mean it should be so. As for agreeing/disagreeing with the NDP, of course we should not disagree just because they’re socialists, however my point is that our mutual agreements should be approached with caution given the observed lack of diligence that that party’s supporters have shown on other issues.
On pot, I said I favour it having the same legal status as alcohol - age limits, public intoxication laws, rules against operation of heavy machinery while under the influence, the works. I acknowledge the issues with mind-altering substances of all sorts, but we’re hardly going to be rid of them any time soon, so the best thing to do is deal with them rationally.
The problem with marriage is more so an issue of how we *don’t* treat it as a contract because the government says so. If it was a contract, it would be up to the individuals in question what the details of it were, instead of people being pushed into a cookie-cutter setup by the government. When marriage becomes a social definition, and the only legal status is embedded in a private contract, then the whole issue of gay marriage will vanish from the political sphere. I’m sure we’d still disagree on whether Adam and Steve are husbands or not, but it wouldn’t manifest in tax discrimination or any of the other lovely spinoff effects we get now.
Regarding abortion, I’m not sure why libertarians are more pro-choice than the public at large. Could be demography, could be the mostly-secular nature of the group, could be the fact that we like to eat meat and the dominant philosophical justification for doing so says that abortion ought to be legal as a side effect. I really don’t know why.
And regarding the NDP, I do tend to approach them with caution - you’ll note that even on the issues where liberals and libertarians agree, the detail work tends to leave us at each other’s throats just as easily as a debate on tax policy. But they’re not all wrong.
Another great blog by Matthew! Good point from Shane re: the lily-livered liberals over-legislating everything! Besides flushing taxpayer money down the toilet, it is what they do best.
No, Matthew, your answer does not help at all because you did not say why. Furthermore, “an arena in which commerce and the dignity of the person can transpire” may exist without governments.
You mentioned “changing the definitions of terms, or institutions.” I would be curious to know how you define commerce and transpiration of the dignity of the person before we get carried away. What you mean by those concepts as they relate to government is unclear.
I am going to give you a little nudge in the right direction by posing the same question differently.
Governments participate in markets. What is the criteria for deciding whether a government agent should participate in a market or abstain? and why?
Do you actually have some numbers to back up your assumption that libertarians are almost uniformly pro-choice? Or is it just another excuse to classify us as liberals in conservative’s clothing?
I’ll bite on the spare the rod verse.
A careful exegesis of the book of Proverbs will clearly indicate that any particular verse in Proverbs cannot arbitrarily be taken at face value as a commandment from God. Many of them are specifically situational, and not meant to be broadly prescriptive.
Surely you don’t seriously mean to tell me that this verse is both literal in the sense that God commands us to beat our children, but not literal in the sense that one must use a rod? Perhaps then we should research what “rod” meant to the ancient hebrews, or more specifically Solomon - perhaps we should use some kind of semblance of a royal sceptre since that is what Solomon would have meant if he were speaking this proverb?
Besides, God clearly made human nature much more varied than the simple verse suggests. I have met many children and parents that simply find no corrective value in corporal punishment for some of their kids. It is necessary to be more creative in determining what punishments are most effective on the children to deter incorrect behaviours.
But back to the verse. It is expressed in simple terms, but like most verses of its kind, is meant to represent an idea. The idea behind the verse is, “if you fail to establish consequences to wrong behaviours exhibited by children under your care, then the children will learn there are no consequences to wrong behaviour and will continue to act in self-indulgent ways into adulthood.”
Now, back to anti-spanking legislation. While I have said before that I oppose such legislation not on Biblical grounds but on grounds of excess, I actually find much more worrisome the recent news of a Quebec judge passing judgement against a father for grounding his daughter. The government telling us which correctives to use in our parenting is not nearly as frightening to me as the prospect of the government telling us what does and does not need to be corrected. If a child can take his or her parent to court because they are being “unfair”, well, let’s just say as a parent, I won’t be staying in this country if that is what is going to happen. I can’t raise kids when those kids have no respect for my authority because the government has told them so.
Right on Shane! ‘Cept which country are you going to move to? Too many are moving in this direction along with ours. Ridiculous!
Adam Dyck, if you’re not personally pro-choice, then the libertarians Matt is describing don’t include you. They are not a group you can describe with ‘us.’
Secondly, I have no idea how you missed that one.
Libertarianism can sometimes be described by ‘the doctrine of non-aggression.’ Unless you’re the father, there is no conceivable way an abortion can be viewed as aggression against you, and thus any punishment for it would not be justified under self-defense.