The Libertarian Fallacy
I have had a moment today to read some political magazines.
I think it's kind of funny to read libertarians these days when they write about things that are permanent and real as if they are not -- like the Roman Catholic papacy -- and then talk about things that are abstract and imaginary as if they were real -- like freedom without morality.
Libertarians, believe it or not, the Roman Catholic papacy has existed for 2,000 years. It is a fact.
Libertarians, believe it or not, there is no freedom without morality. It is also a fact.
Talk to any pastor or psychologist. Without morality, the mind becomes possessed with bad, wasteful and sinful habits which deprive us of freedom. Is a man truly free if he is consumed by laziness, lust, greed or gluttony? Man is only free when he can do what he ought to do!
Come now, come now, don't be so dumb now. Libertarians, wake up. Join the battle for the soul of America -- or at least choose sides.
I think it's kind of funny to read libertarians these days when they write about things that are permanent and real as if they are not -- like the Roman Catholic papacy -- and then talk about things that are abstract and imaginary as if they were real -- like freedom without morality.
Libertarians, believe it or not, the Roman Catholic papacy has existed for 2,000 years. It is a fact.
Libertarians, believe it or not, there is no freedom without morality. It is also a fact.
Talk to any pastor or psychologist. Without morality, the mind becomes possessed with bad, wasteful and sinful habits which deprive us of freedom. Is a man truly free if he is consumed by laziness, lust, greed or gluttony? Man is only free when he can do what he ought to do!
Come now, come now, don't be so dumb now. Libertarians, wake up. Join the battle for the soul of America -- or at least choose sides.
posted by ssc | 4/22/2005 11:52:00 PM
I don't understand SSC's continued insistence on corrupting our understanding of freedom by blurring the distinction between external and internal constraints.
If you go back to the Greek roots of the word freedom, it is clear that the opposite of freedom is slavery - being owned by another person. Not having one's passions rightly ordered does not make you owned by another person, unless your willing to say you are literally owned by Satan (in which case you've lost any ability to communicate with non-Christians).
If SSC's statement had been "there is no happiness without morality" I would agree. A man consumed by laziness, lust, greed or gluttony, absent external constraints, isn't unfree, he's unhappy. No is forcing him to lie around, fornicate, steal or eat. In fact, using words like freedom to describe a lack of character flaws, in my opinion, contributes to our society's unwillingness to hold anyone responsible for anything. "Honey, I can't help visiting prostitutes. I'm a sex addict!" (Yeah, that's the ticket.)
One can have freedom without morality. It just won't be used very well.
"Man is only free when he can do what he ought to do!"
Am I right in assuming "what he ought to do" is act morally? That being the case he must judge "morally" against either standards or principles.
If he judges "morally" against standards, then is he freely making a moral judgement or is his action constrained by a standard that he dares not question?
If he judges morally based against some principle, then you need to define what that principle is beyond "what he ought to do."
If I am hungry, I ought to eat. Even if I feel desire, I ought not sleep with a prostitute. I agree, but can you tell me what principle rationalizes those two decisions and makes them what "I ought to do?"
You libertarians are funny - only dealing with half the argument. Two points. First, if a moral-less liberty is so real in the libertarian's minds, how can a libertarian deny the papacy's claims. There is more evidence of the historical Jesus and apostolic succession than evidence of your moral-less liberty ever working for the common good. Second, perhaps, I assume too much in that libertians want a liberty that would serve the common good. Or wouldn't your relativist sides care -- a liberty that serves our common destruction is equally good to a liberty that serves the common good.
Libertarians (or economists) have to pick between two goals: the common good or our common destruction. If they can't, they are simply relativists -- neither libertarians nor economists.
SSC,
I don't want to speak for Craig here, but the reason I didn't address the "libertarians don't think the papacy is real" issue is I honestly have no idea what the hell you are talking about. What libertarian has ever said that the papacy wasn't real or that Jesus isn't a historical figure?
SSC,
Perhaps I'm being too literal. When you write "freedom without virtue is impossible" I assumed you meant categorically. It is also possible you meant "freedom without virtue will not long be maintained." That is, without virtue, those with freedom will almost certianly not be able to keep up the system that allowed the freedom in the first place. If this is the case, I agree completely.
In this case, Chris may speak for me -- "What libertarian has ever said that the papacy wasn't real or that Jesus isn't a historical figure?"
Now, I'm sure some have, but not this one.
The point I'm making is that government is not the proper mechanism for instilling individual morality into society.
A choice between the "common good" and "common destruction" is a false dichotomy.
Imposed (as by force) morality is neither common nor good. It is to the benefit of those whose morality is imposed at the expense of those it is imposed upon.
Individual morality, which (again in his second post, Chris states nicely) imposed by (indiivdual) rational self-interest, promotes the common good -- even those who do not accept it benefit by the stability of the society it creates.
To my good friends and all my brothers and sisters --
Let's keep it simple then. You have a choice between the common good and common destruction. The common good would be aided by a bill of responsibilities (aspirations really) by which adults would behave, parents would raise their children and children wouild grow up to be responsible adults. The common destruction would be caused by a bill of rights (again aspirations really) by which adults were encouraged to act like children, parents do not raise their children and the children act like irresponsible adults. Which do you choose?
Freedom without virtue is vice.
I haven't had to make a choice like that since Jerry Sikorski was my congressman and he sent me a survey asking if I'd rather have my tax dollars go to educating children or building bombs to drop on peaceful villages.
But, here's a way you could sort of to put your plan into action -- but you're not going to like it.
First, get government out of the marriage business, put sacremental marriage back into the churches where it belongs and divorce it from anything having to do with the state. Getting married in a church gives you absolutely no standing with the state whatsoever, but if you're maried in the eyes of God, does that matter?
On the state side implement civil unions between two people. Because civil unions are voluntary, as long as they are not discriminatory, you can legislatively make them as draconian as you want.
Disolve a civil union -- there's a financial penalty plus you can't form another civil union for "X" years. A civil union doesn't become effective for one year after application.
You pick the responsibilities you want to include -- you're just going to have to balance them with benefits (which taxpayers are on the hook for) that make a civil union attractive.
Yes, freedom without virtue is vice, but virtue without freedom is not virtue, it is merely the corerced absence of vice.
Let me ask, who is the more virtuous -- he who resists temptation (as did Christ in the Wilderness) or he who feels no temptation?
Dear Mr. Westover and others who are reading this friendly and respectful dialogue:
Greetings.
First, you changed the topic. I accept that as a concession and move on.
Second, you were right that I don't like your idea -- mainly because it is not libertarian.
As to governmental regulation of marriage, let's again offer two alternatives: the common good and common destruction. Working for the common good would mean long-term stable marriages because these tend to lead to happier spouses and better-educated, better-mannered and better-fed children. Working for the common destruction would be unstable marriages and children born-out-of-wedlock because these lead to unhappy spouses, single mothers and worse-educated, poor-mannered and less well-fed children. (Rightly or wrongly, an affluent state's typical response to this state of common destruction is a social welfare system.)
If you would define the common good and common destruction in different ways, please let's start there. But, I move on . . .
As to your proposal, I think it is glib -- semantics aside -- civil unions are, for all intents and purposes, marriage. Nothing in the proposal recommends the common good. Rather, it appears driven by some form of egalatarianism to include gay marriage or other forms of marriage as equal to life-long, legally-bindig marriage. Boring.
Further, it actually expands the size of government and the court system by complicating the divorce issues by having multiple, different kinds of marriages -- some of which the government would consider in the context of divorce proper and some not (the opposite of your intended effect).
I think your proposal tends toward the common destruction. By watering down marriage -- particularly in its procreative sense -- you discredit and destablize marriage leading to less-educated, less-mannered and less well-fed children. On this issue, you appear to be with Congressman Sikorski.
Lastly, you can put a banana in your ear and call it eating -- but it's still not eating.
For a libertarian idea, consider if the United States permitted ecclesiastical courts to be officially established. The Roman Catholic church already has such tribunals in every American dioceses. In fact, JAS member Rev. Mr. Nathan Allen is a judge of the St. Paul - Minneapolis tribunal. Engaged couples would -- similar to commercial arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act -- agree to waive jurisdiction of civil courts in favor of the ecclesiastical courts. But, most importantly -- and distinguishing it from your proposal -- the ecclesiastical courts would have jurisdiction over marriage, divorce, divorce settlement and post-dissolution child support/alimony/etc. So, the government and its courts would not at the divorce end have an opportunity to review the choices that the couples made at the front end. Freedom.
The positive benefit of this approach would be the availablility of an authentic, legally-binding, life-long marriage if one wanted one. This in turn would lead to more stable marriages, better-educated, better-mannered and better-fed children.
And for my libertarian friends who think such a world would be no fun at all -- there's still adultery.
Best regards.
You write --
“You have a choice between the common good and common destruction. The common good would be aided by a bill of responsibilities (aspirations really) by which adults would behave, parents would raise their children and children would grow up to be responsible adults. The common destruction would be caused by a bill of rights (again aspirations really) by which adults were encouraged to act like children, parents do not raise their children and the children act like irresponsible adults. Which do you choose?”
And then write --
“First, you changed the topic. I accept that as a concession and move on.”
The “expansion” of the topic is hardly a concession. I simply cannot answer a “have you stopped beating your wife yet” question in any meaningful way. You have not established that a bill or responsibilities would necessarily create the effect you desire nor that a bill of rights would necessarily cause the destruction that you fear. There is a connection between neither cause and neither effect.
For every Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed by license (which is quite a stretch from a bill of rights) there is a Sparta and a Third Reich destroyed by a rigid code of responsibilities (which is not that big a stretch). Even a thought experiment has to be logically testable.
Relating to your second definition of the common good, I accept your definitions as majoritarian values, but not totalitarian values -- in other words it would be good for society if the significant majority of families were stable, indeed if all families were stable. It would not be in the best interest of society if all families were coerced into a authoritarian-defined stability so that a minority would not fall into instability.
Civil unions are not driven by egalitarianism, which is the notion that outcomes must be equal. It is driven by equality before the law, which says that a law must apply equally to all citizens. That is far more than a semantic distinction.
As to expanding the size of government -- it’s not the size of your government that counts, but how you use it. Government does not have a limited size, it has limited powers. Its proper size is that necessary to execute its limited powers. Protecting and ensuring equality before the law is one such legitimate power.
My proposal does not water down marriage. It actually strengths the definition of marriage. Today, one can hop a plane to Las Vegas and get married by a guy dressed like an alien. What I propose is that marriage be returned to the churches where it remains a holy sacrament and a commitment to God, the partner, and the community of faith.
In fact, that would open the door to your ecclesiastical court system. For those people who freely opted for it, government and its courts would not at the divorce end have an opportunity to review the choices that the couples made at the front end. Great.
But here’s the rub. Not all people will freely choose that form of marriage. Therefore you are left with one of two options if you agree it is important to maintain equality before the law.
A) The government gets totally out of the marriage/civil union business and there are no inherent legal rights conferred by ecclesiastical marriage outside the church. In other words, all couples would face what same-sex couples face today. No state benefits such as tax breaks; a lawyer would have to be hired to ensure that where the couple met the state, e.g. making decisions about a spouse’s health care, proper legal authority was in place.
Or . . . .
B) There is a civil equivalent for those that wish it through which partnership rights are conferred. Those opting for ecclesiastical marriage would still need to have a civil “contract” that defined civilly conferred benefits and obligations.
My proposal is form B, into which your concept fits quite nicely.
As to adultery -- as Emmanuelle asked in that classic philosophical study “Emmanuelle in the Far East,” “Is it adultery if you do cheat on your husband with another woman?”
Post a Comment