This is by way of follow-up to yesterday’s post (Reasons For Long Term Pessimism), but it can’t be repeated too often: Libertarians are no friends to conservative and normal people. Thanks for reading Meaning In History! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Nearly all the libertarians I know (admittedly a limited a sample size) cannot be bothered with either participatory democracy or procreation. Cynicism in today's world is certainly understandable, but allowing disaffection to destroy your human agency is a fatal flaw. Fortunately, libertarians seem to be disproportionately de-selecting themselves from the gene pool. Approaching the end of my life without having experienced the joys and suffering of fatherhood would be an unfathomable bleakness of spirit. On the other hand, I have a stake in the battle for the country precisely because I have two generations below me. When they are gone, living memory of me will disappear as well, but I owe them to fight.
I have an old libertarian (former) friend who told me that "we don't need to let politics define our relationship in our final years." He's jabbed, voted for Biden, and is fine with the Dem's anti-human agenda. Now he wants to make a separate peace. Is it a mortal sin that I feel that it's good that his DNA line ends with him?
Let me put it this way: I would prefer that God-fearing 'breeders' have more children than the groomers who support unfettered abortion, euthanasia, lawlessness, inculcating dysphoria, and tyranny. That better?
I don't have to criticize Malloch, who I often admire, as there are many on this site and those commenting on his article who do this already. I am not well informed as to what 'libertarian ' means in today's politics, and would appreciate clarification. I am, however, a great admirer of Hayeck and the Austrian school of economists, and fail to see why he is referred to as "a very famous libertarian." I would recommend everybody read his "Road to Serfdom." written in 1944, which is available in PDF on the internet. It is more pertinent now than ever before. What has to be stated is that 'liberal' in the 1940's and '50s was something totally different than the term today. So is 'conservative.' I was a '50s liberal, and haven't changed my views. That makes me an arch-conservative today. Further, even after having read the 'manifesto' I fail to see any indication of denying the need for or authority of government, or any denial of religion, except that there must be allowance for free choice and personal responsibility. Now would someone please explain to me the position of those who call themselves libertarians in today's politics.
PS. I never read Ayn Rand. I don't like those who put polemics into literature or art.
I do not often comment, but this article was one I wanted to weigh in about, but my system was under repair and I am just getting it back to use. I have had some issues with Mark's comments about Classical Liberalism and Libetarianism as one and the same thing, it is my opinion they are not. You are correct with respect to Hayek. I also read some of his writing and specifically "The Road to Serfdom." You make a good point with respect to what Liberalism meant in the 40's/50's, but let me take it another step further, that conservatism, (the version in the USA) is not the same as European or British versions. I would say Murray Rothbard is a libertarian in the true sense of the word although he is also Austrian Econ devotee. In the essay cited by Mark ("Why I am Not a Conservative") Hayek said:
"Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread
attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century
and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its
opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of
the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common
tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American
tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was
made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of
conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd
character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling
themselves "liberals."
Hayek highlighted this differentiation to delineate between socialist/liberal and Conservative in the European sense and he was referring to why he was not a Conservative in the European tradition. As for Classical Liberalism one can find at the Mises Institute this description:
"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying "classical" is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as "social," or (erroneously) "modern" or the "new," liberalism."
The Mises definition coincides with what is known as the American Creed by William Tyler Page in 1917 (often cited by Samuel Huntington is his book "Who are We?) and accepted by the United States House of Representatives on April 3, 1918. It reads:
"I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies."
I don't believe Hayek thought of himself as a libertarian, but rather a Liberal in the sense of American Liberalism of the sort before the term was hi-jacked by the left wing of the Democratic Party and today would be an American Conservative and a fan of Trump. I was a fan of Milton Friedman for years in his "free To Choose" philosophy however; in recent years I have rethought my position and embraced Trump's policies of tariffs. I abandoned my "free to Choose" sensibilities due to the unique nature of china's predatory policies and their theft of trade secrets and closed market mentality embrace the tariffs as a vehicle to offset and punish their unfair trade policies and scurrilous behavior enabled by our overbearing class of Oligarch's.
I think a lot of Libertarians lose sight of the fact that the traditions and customs they want to be free of are the result of social evolution and serve the function of creating a stable society in the absence of the state. Only the state allows atomized individuals to become care free libertines. In true Ancapistan, the childless party animal will die a pathetic and lonely existence with no one to care for them in the absence of social security. The ruthless, all-about-me businessman will be ostracized from the community that isn't forced by the legal system to allow him free access through the community, etc. True Libertarianism would end up being socially conservative, much to many Libertarians' chagrin.
My view is that libertarianism is what follows from the idea that forcing other people to do what they don't want to do is bad. (But not the only bad thing)
And that freedom is what enables people to seek the good in their own way. (Which they will sometimes get wrong).
Are you confident enough that you know what's right to force other people to live the life you think is good? I'm generally not.
I see libertarianism failing on contact with the reality of caring for children: new humans with an actual biological mother and father involved in their procreation. Somebody has to make decisions for a child based on a view of the good life for the child. Whose view?
Are you really contending that it is perfectly ok to force other people to live the life you think is good for them? That there's nothing wrong at all with forcing other people to do what you want?
I certainly buy into 1-3. I'm skeptical that he would accept #4. OTOH, I do believe some departments/agencies should be eliminated. However the Constitution does leave it up to Congress to create such entities. The question is delegation of powers that violate the Constitutional principle of separation of powers.
Not a good example. Art III Section 2. It's well established that Congress can withdraw jurisdiction of categories of cases from the federal courts.
Nearly all the libertarians I know (admittedly a limited a sample size) cannot be bothered with either participatory democracy or procreation. Cynicism in today's world is certainly understandable, but allowing disaffection to destroy your human agency is a fatal flaw. Fortunately, libertarians seem to be disproportionately de-selecting themselves from the gene pool. Approaching the end of my life without having experienced the joys and suffering of fatherhood would be an unfathomable bleakness of spirit. On the other hand, I have a stake in the battle for the country precisely because I have two generations below me. When they are gone, living memory of me will disappear as well, but I owe them to fight.
I have an old libertarian (former) friend who told me that "we don't need to let politics define our relationship in our final years." He's jabbed, voted for Biden, and is fine with the Dem's anti-human agenda. Now he wants to make a separate peace. Is it a mortal sin that I feel that it's good that his DNA line ends with him?
Yes!
Let me put it this way: I would prefer that God-fearing 'breeders' have more children than the groomers who support unfettered abortion, euthanasia, lawlessness, inculcating dysphoria, and tyranny. That better?
I don't have to criticize Malloch, who I often admire, as there are many on this site and those commenting on his article who do this already. I am not well informed as to what 'libertarian ' means in today's politics, and would appreciate clarification. I am, however, a great admirer of Hayeck and the Austrian school of economists, and fail to see why he is referred to as "a very famous libertarian." I would recommend everybody read his "Road to Serfdom." written in 1944, which is available in PDF on the internet. It is more pertinent now than ever before. What has to be stated is that 'liberal' in the 1940's and '50s was something totally different than the term today. So is 'conservative.' I was a '50s liberal, and haven't changed my views. That makes me an arch-conservative today. Further, even after having read the 'manifesto' I fail to see any indication of denying the need for or authority of government, or any denial of religion, except that there must be allowance for free choice and personal responsibility. Now would someone please explain to me the position of those who call themselves libertarians in today's politics.
PS. I never read Ayn Rand. I don't like those who put polemics into literature or art.
Perle,
I do not often comment, but this article was one I wanted to weigh in about, but my system was under repair and I am just getting it back to use. I have had some issues with Mark's comments about Classical Liberalism and Libetarianism as one and the same thing, it is my opinion they are not. You are correct with respect to Hayek. I also read some of his writing and specifically "The Road to Serfdom." You make a good point with respect to what Liberalism meant in the 40's/50's, but let me take it another step further, that conservatism, (the version in the USA) is not the same as European or British versions. I would say Murray Rothbard is a libertarian in the true sense of the word although he is also Austrian Econ devotee. In the essay cited by Mark ("Why I am Not a Conservative") Hayek said:
"Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread
attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century
and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its
opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of
the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common
tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American
tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was
made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of
conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd
character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling
themselves "liberals."
Hayek highlighted this differentiation to delineate between socialist/liberal and Conservative in the European sense and he was referring to why he was not a Conservative in the European tradition. As for Classical Liberalism one can find at the Mises Institute this description:
"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying "classical" is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as "social," or (erroneously) "modern" or the "new," liberalism."
The Mises definition coincides with what is known as the American Creed by William Tyler Page in 1917 (often cited by Samuel Huntington is his book "Who are We?) and accepted by the United States House of Representatives on April 3, 1918. It reads:
"I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies."
I don't believe Hayek thought of himself as a libertarian, but rather a Liberal in the sense of American Liberalism of the sort before the term was hi-jacked by the left wing of the Democratic Party and today would be an American Conservative and a fan of Trump. I was a fan of Milton Friedman for years in his "free To Choose" philosophy however; in recent years I have rethought my position and embraced Trump's policies of tariffs. I abandoned my "free to Choose" sensibilities due to the unique nature of china's predatory policies and their theft of trade secrets and closed market mentality embrace the tariffs as a vehicle to offset and punish their unfair trade policies and scurrilous behavior enabled by our overbearing class of Oligarch's.
I think a lot of Libertarians lose sight of the fact that the traditions and customs they want to be free of are the result of social evolution and serve the function of creating a stable society in the absence of the state. Only the state allows atomized individuals to become care free libertines. In true Ancapistan, the childless party animal will die a pathetic and lonely existence with no one to care for them in the absence of social security. The ruthless, all-about-me businessman will be ostracized from the community that isn't forced by the legal system to allow him free access through the community, etc. True Libertarianism would end up being socially conservative, much to many Libertarians' chagrin.
"Only the state allows atomized individuals to become care free libertines."
Very well put.
Thank you, feel free to use it as your own.
My view is that libertarianism is what follows from the idea that forcing other people to do what they don't want to do is bad. (But not the only bad thing)
And that freedom is what enables people to seek the good in their own way. (Which they will sometimes get wrong).
Are you confident enough that you know what's right to force other people to live the life you think is good? I'm generally not.
I see libertarianism failing on contact with the reality of caring for children: new humans with an actual biological mother and father involved in their procreation. Somebody has to make decisions for a child based on a view of the good life for the child. Whose view?
A perfect illustration of Malloch's points. An incoherent worldview that guarantees anarchy and human misery.
Are you really contending that it is perfectly ok to force other people to live the life you think is good for them? That there's nothing wrong at all with forcing other people to do what you want?
Are you really contending that you read and seriously reflected on what Malloch wrote? Stop being an idiot and start using your brain.
No, I'm not. I will and will get back to you. 😀
That's what's so frustrating about Rand.
I certainly buy into 1-3. I'm skeptical that he would accept #4. OTOH, I do believe some departments/agencies should be eliminated. However the Constitution does leave it up to Congress to create such entities. The question is delegation of powers that violate the Constitutional principle of separation of powers.
Very disappointed in Ron Johnson. It's about money.