Key Concepts of Libertarianism

[KenH]

Since @Salty's thread on libertarianism has some content issues in the video, I thought I would help him out and post an article on the subject.

Key Concepts of Libertarianism | Cato Institute

 

[Baptist Believer]

The primary fatal flaw of libertarianism is that it does not take into account the corruption of sin upon human history and culture. The "spontaneous order" tenet does not recognize that institutions of "...law, money, and markets..." can easily be corrupted (and historically HAVE BEEN corrupted) to undermine the welfare, life, and liberty of others.

 

[KenH]

The primary fatal flaw of libertarianism is that it does not take into account the corruption of sin upon human history and culture.

That is incorrect. Minimal government is a key concept of libertarianism based on the fallen nature of man.

 

[KenH]

I noticed that @Salty replaced the video in his thread with a different one without the content issues. Not a totally accurate description of libertarianism but at least it doesn't have bad graphics in it.

 

[DaveXR650]

That is incorrect. Minimal government is a key concept of libertarianism based on the fallen nature of man.

Where I think @Baptist Believer has a point is that libertarianism works to the extent the society is pious, self-disciplined or at least homogenous and high trust with a natural tendency to gentleness. We have none of that in the USA, any more, unfortunately. Also, there has always been and always will be a libertine wing of any libertarian group. When I read the Cato article I have great sympathy for the principles and it's where I wish we could be but I just don't think we are up to it any more.

 

[KenH]

Where I think @Baptist Believer has a point is that libertarianism works to the extent the society is pious, self-disciplined or at least homogenous and high trust with a natural tendency to gentleness.

No, that is incorrect.

 

[DaveXR650]

Ken, I just don't think the Cato article is correct in that an orderly society will just naturally develop. True, it does not require central authority, but the success of the society depends more upon those things I mentioned above. A premium on aggression, high self esteem, the idea that you take nothing off of anyone and that everyone else is just there for your pleasure or is in your way is not a good basis for living in peace and having a high level of independence. If the people have Christian values, or maybe there are other religions that put a premium on non-violence and people are naturally non-aggressive, well then maybe you have a good chance for libertarianism to work well. I'm just saying you have to have core cultural values that we don't have, or maybe never had.

 

[KenH]

Ken, I just don't think the Cato article is correct in that an orderly society will just naturally develop. True, it does not require central authority, but the success of the society depends more upon those things I mentioned above. A premium on aggression, high self esteem, the idea that you take nothing off of anyone and that everyone else is just there for your pleasure or is in your way is not a good basis for living in peace and having a high level of independence. If the people have Christian values, or maybe there are other religions that put a premium on non-violence and people are naturally non-aggressive, well then maybe you have a good chance for libertarianism to work well. I'm just saying you have to have core cultural values that we don't have, or maybe never had.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[KenH]

This is another way to explain the principles of minarchist libertarianism:

"The state therefore has two natural functions, functions essential to the existence of any peaceful, ordered society: to protect the rights of citizens against violent or fraudulent assault, and to judge in conflicts of right with right. It has a further third function, which is another aspect of the first, that is, to protect its citizens from assault by foreign powers. These three functions are expressed by three powers: the police power, which protects the citizen against domestic violence; the military power, which protects the citizen against violence from abroad; and the courts of law, which judge between rights and rights, as well as sharing with the police power the protection of the citizen against domestic violence.
…
But since this institution must possess a monopoly of legal physical force, to give to it in addition any further power is fraught with danger; that monopoly gives to the state so much power that its natural functions should be its maximum functions."

- Frank S. Meyer, In Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo, published in 1962

 

[DaveXR650]

But since this institution must possess a monopoly of legal physical force, to give to it in addition any further power is fraught with danger; that monopoly gives to the state so much power that its natural functions should be its maximum functions."

Just out of curiosity, would they have been in favor of the individual citizen owning weapons? I know enough about the philosophical origins of the Second Amendment to know that the real purpose of it was to insure that the state did NOT have a monopoly on legal physical force.

 

[KenH]

Just out of curiosity, would they have been in favor of the individual citizen owning weapons?

Some libertarians consider conservatives in the United States(to use a bit of hyperbole, but just a bit) to be flaming liberals on the issue of gun ownership.

 

[KenH]

An example of libertarianism by President Grover Cleveland from his veto message of the Texas Seed Bill in 1887.

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.”

Furthermore, Cleveland said, it would weaken the “bonds of a common brotherhood” for the government to provide assistance to individuals where individuals, families, communities and private charities otherwise would.

Finally, the veto message suggested that if Congress wanted to relieve the suffering of Texas farmers, Senators and Representatives from each state could voluntarily give up the share of grain distributed by the Department of Agriculture each year. “The constituents, for whom in theory this grain is intended, could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity.”

 

[KenH]

An example of libertarianism by President Grover Cleveland from his veto message of the Texas Seed Bill in 1887.

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.”

Furthermore, Cleveland said, it would weaken the “bonds of a common brotherhood” for the government to provide assistance to individuals where individuals, families, communities and private charities otherwise would.

Finally, the veto message suggested that if Congress wanted to relieve the suffering of Texas farmers, Senators and Representatives from each state could voluntarily give up the share of grain distributed by the Department of Agriculture each year. “The constituents, for whom in theory this grain is intended, could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity.”

I should have noted that the above quote came from this link: Cleveland and the Texas Seed Bill - Bill of Rights Institute

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

One of my many issues with Libertarianism is the emphasis of "individualism". Individuals are like a bunch of BBs in a bag and when Caesar applies pressure to the BBs in the bag the BBs provide no resistance and mold to whatever Caesar wants them to.

Communities on the other hand, even states or regions, that share a promoted culture do not flex when Caesar applies pressure. You can see how states didn't fold on Covid restrictions for an example of this, or even the American Revolution which was led by the colonies (essentially State) governments. There must be a strong structure, which is why our Federal Republic is such a good mixture of liberty and restrictions (or was until Lincoln came along).

I also don't agree that unrestricted Capitalism is best for a country. Being Conservative I think we should learn from experience and Reagan/Bush/Clinton's brainchild of less regulations via NAFTA absolutely annihilated most rural communities, destroyed families and infected my region with crack, fentanyl, and meth. A lot of my region is Extremely Socially Conservative and Economically Moderate/Liberal for the above reason.

I also think a Christian nation will inevitably implement Christian morals into laws that will be promoted, or at least protected by the government. That's a big no-no for Libertarians.

 

[KenH]

One of my many issues with Libertarianism is the emphasis of "individualism". Individuals are like a bunch of BBs in a bag and when Caesar applies pressure to the BBs in the bag the BBs provide no resistance and mold to whatever Caesar wants them to.

Communities on the other hand, even states or regions, that share a promoted culture do not flex when Caesar applies pressure. You can see how states didn't fold on Covid restrictions for an example of this, or even the American Revolution which was led by the colonies (essentially State) governments. There must be a strong structure, which is why our Federal Republic is such a good mixture of liberty and restrictions (or was until Lincoln came along).

I also don't agree that unrestricted Capitalism is best for a country. Being Conservative I think we should learn from experience and Reagan/Bush/Clinton's brainchild of less regulations via NAFTA absolutely annihilated most rural communities, destroyed families and infected my region with crack, fentanyl, and meth. A lot of my region is Extremely Socially Conservative and Economically Moderate/Liberal for the above reason.

I also think a Christian nation will inevitably implement Christian morals into laws that will be promoted, or at least protected by the government. That's a big no-no for Libertarians.

Thank you for your post. It is a good example of why the Fusionism between libertarians and conservatives, promoted by folks such as Frank S. Meyer, began to break down after the demise of the Soviet Union, as much of conservativism in the United States eventually became enveloped by the big government conservatism of the New Right in the 2010s up to the present day.