“I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat. God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle-aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men strictly accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well-being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on virtually everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God’s heavenly country club. Santa Claus is another matter. He’s cute. His nonthreatening. He’s always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without thought of a quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he’s famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus.”
PJ O’Rourke. (Page XXii of Parliament of Whores). Of course, now that the Democrats are led by a Chicago machine “Community Organiser” who is prepared to throw inconvenient former allies under a proverbial bus, it is unclear if O’Rourke’s relatively charming portrayal of the Democrats really holds any more. But hey, any excuse for a Christmas reference.
His analogy is even more apt than it appears – many people really want to believe in a Republican Party like the one he describes. But, like God, neither actually exists.
God may be a Republican but the rest of the party bigwigs seem to be crass invertebrates, and stupid with it. Not that the other parties are much better: the spread between the Republican, Democratic and Libertarian leadership is pretty much the spread between Larry, Curly and Moe.
Oh dear. Like most propaganda this is mostly untrue but with some pertinent points.
God is not dependent on time nor space and cannot be elderly or, at any rate, middle-aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal.
He is more concerned with the thoughts and intents of our hearts rather than a great believer in rules and regulations. He thus holds men more strictly accountable for their motives than for their actions. He has great concern for the material well-being of the disadvantaged if they will but heed Him and the advice that He has on offer. Far from being politically connected, socially powerful and holding the mortgage on virtually everything in the world, this territory is more the domain of the prince of this world, who offered the works to Jesus if He (Jesus) would simply bow down and worship him. God is not difficult but would have us come to a full understanding of Him if we can just lay aside our pride and conceit. God is unsentimental. True. God does not deal with sentimentality but rather, love. Complete, total and perfect love. It is not very hard to get into God’s heavenly country club. All one has to do is ask and be prepared to live with the truth/reality. No other terms or conditions applied.
You sayin the Libertarian is Moe? I always saw the Libertarian as Shem. Moe was a mean bastard, definitely a republican. Curly, like Santa, is a jolly retard, hes a democrat. That leaves Larry the Libertarian. The only thing I sigh about the Libertarian leadership is they need to get off their educational high horse and start engaging in the trenches with political theater like my eminent domaining the supreme court justices over Kelo. You can’t have more fun than by holding the fascist bastards to their own standards.
What I take away from this analogy is that both are essentially delusional and like to argue over which side has the best invisible imaginary friend 🙂
Santa Claus buys you whatever you want, but using your parents’ wallet whilst taking all the credit.
When you get older, you get to pay for his profligacy yourself. 🙂
Actually Andi, he’s using your grandkids wallet (or are we on the great grandkids by now? Its going by so fast these days).
Moe is the one who always leads the others off a cliff: ‘leadership’ rules out either the Libertarians or Republicans, making Moe the Democrat.
PJ – brilliant as always. Recently heard him speak at the Independence Institute annual dinner and all those in attendance received a “Nobel Peace Prize” for our future accomplishments….the best part of it all being that PJ’s picture is engraved on one side, stogie and all.
He’s the best.
and
So it follows that there is no such thing as democrats? Well, this is mostly true, if by democrats one means PJ’s silly caricature. The real democrats though are nothing like the cuddly, well-intentioned Santa, and unfortunately they very much exist. And no, I am not saying that Republicans are much better: their ‘God’ caricature is rather silly as well.
I have missed the sarcasm of the quote, haven’t I? Sigh, bedtime…:-)
If god is a republican and santa clause is a democrat, then it’s rudolph who is a libertarian. The misfit with the glowing red nose that everyone makes fun of and excludes from the proverbial reindeer games. But he’s the one they are going to turn to when BOTH fantasies are revealed and the shit hits the fan. Both brands of Statist nonsense are going to come crashing down some day soon. It’s inevitable.
Also found at 7:50 here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMTPwAA5Pb8
God Bless PJ O’Rourke.
Brad:
Sorry to pop your cherry, but the truth is that the “fantasies” peddled by conservative republicans are mostly true. A given society requires a common culture, language, and values. Marriage of one man and one women forms the basis for facilitating beta males to buy into and invest in society. The natural way of things is for 15% of males (alpha males) to get 75% of females. Mothers do not suddenly celebrate their pregnancy 3 months after having sex. This is because they are pregnant with a living human life at conception. Currently, the vast majority of Americans are religious Christians and they are forced by the government to fund and attend schools that teach ideas they do not believe in and that do not permit voluntary Christian prayer.
The bottom line here is that while statism in the social sphere is undesirable and, yes, strictly immoral from a libertarian moral philosophy, conservative social policy-making is not an illusion or fantasy. It is based on a very real understanding of human nature and how to form the glue that keeps society civilized and prosperous together.
Ever wonder why there has never been and never will be a society governed by a Constitution that reads “you may do whatever you wish, so long as you do not violate the life, liberty, or property of another human being”? It’s because it is a fantasy that cannot, will not, does not exist.
Frak, if it bothers you that some US taxpayers do not wish to fund the idea in God or other imaginary concepts, then that’ tough, but hey, such is life.
There is nothing to stop you and your family from going to church, studying the Bible and theology, etc. The US is probably one of the most vibrant societies on earth in terms of Christian belief, and yet so many of you guys seem to suffer from some sort of persecution complex about any suggestion that the US was, after all, a child of the Enlightenment quite as much as a product of different strains of Christian devotion (Puritans in the northeast, Quakers in the middle, Anglicans in the south, etc).
Happy Christmas!
Johnathan,
I am genuinely confused about what you mean by your first sentence. Please explain/reword. If you meant that I think that people should fund religious schooling or subsidize religious activities in some way, you are mistaken.
As for the rest, I am actually Jewish and most people do not consider me religious. I would not really call myself religious, but I do think that life is inconceivable. 🙂
And I agree that the US is very much a child of the Enlightenment. I also do not think you directly refuted any of my claims. The basic idea that I was trying to get across (and probably failed to) is that civilization cannot and will not ever be sustainable in the long run without a government that enforces more than laws that strictly uphold only natural rights.
In other words, human nature sucks and to sustain civilization there needs to be a government that does stuff that violates liberty. This is especially true in the social sphere of issues.
Libertarians are right about moral philosophy. I agree with 95% of what is written on this site and I would love for governments the world over to become a small fraction of their current size by every measure (especially government spending and taxes). But libertarians do not realize that to sustain a civilization over the long run, where there are interests that can wield monopoly on force given the opening, it is necessary to pass laws that are immoral by libertarian standards. It’s all to preserve more liberty for more people for a longer period of time – A.K.A. civilization.
I might be making no sense given my…state of mind. In which case, sorry for wasting your time.
Johnathan,
I would also add that the doctrinaire Libertarian is sort of religious in believing that individuals’ natural rights are sacred. I used to describe myself as a Libertarian.
Frak:
It might sound good in theory, if the government could be somehow shielded from being taken over by that same nasty human nature, but I’m sure you understand that this is impossible. We are all grown up and understand that given our imperfect nature there are no perfect solutions. The big question which solution is less imperfect. I think that it would be the one that does a better job of taking into account the actual nature of things, just as imperfect as it is. Ignoring the fact that a government can never be better than the people it governs is a failure on that point.
Alisa,
I think we agree. Part of my point is that libertarians seem to make a habit out of making the perfect be the enemy of the good. Social conservatives (in the USA) are natural allies of libertarians. Both look at the government with a furrowed brow if that makes sense…because they expect the government to disrupt good things, which it usually does.
Tangentially, I always find it…telling and amusing that libertarians never sympathize with religious Christians who despise the fact that they are forced to attend and fund public schools that teach evolution, which they do not believe in. Could it be that even Libertarians let the personal become the political sometimes?
Another part of my point is that if you agree that, though we should minimize the harm done, liberty must be violated at least to a minimal degree to preserve civilization (i.e. there cannot be no taxes) then one cannot be a pure Libertarian and successfully do all it takes to create civilization/cannot intellectually defend the necessary steps to establish civilization. Agree?
Jeeze, I need to sleep.
Social conservatives are certainly tactical allies. Natural? It depends on whether, given a chance, they would be willing to force their social agenda on the likes on me (a secular Jew). I know some who would, and some who wouldn’t. The former are the fish we should not be frying quite yet (tactical allies), the latter are certainly natural allies. BTW, every ideology has its share of zealots, whose zealotry is the enemy of the good as they themselves perceive it. Scarily, the only ones who understood this quite a while ago are the various socialists, who seem to have taken a leaf from the book of the fine art of fencing.
No. See, there is a difference between ‘liberty must be violated’ and ‘we cannot fight all violations of liberty all the time everywhere, so we’ll fight one violation at the time, however small, hopefully defeating some of the big ones occasionally’. ‘Must’ implies ceding the actual principle. Acknowledging that a perfect adherence to principle may never be achieved is not the same as giving up on it all together.
I certainly do sympathize with religious Christians, but then I do not consider myself a libertarian. That is simply because, after all these years, I still cannot figure out what exactly is a libertarian. Coming from a secular, socially-conservative background myself, I thought of myself as a minarchist for a while. I still do, but I now realize that logically minarchism can only be a strategy towards more perfect (as opposed to perfectly perfect) solutions.
Oh, and BTW, none of that ‘sacred natural rights’ business for me either.
Then you fail to understand libertarianism (and as there are many flavours of that, you need to at least pick a clearer target). An individuals’ natural rights are not ‘sacred’, an individuals’ natural rights are just… natural… which is to say, derived from the nature of humans.
Conservative statism is just as corrosive to those right as any other sort of statism, it just attacks them from a conservative direction, usually based on disastrous generalisation which then lead to such notions as “as functional families are good, ‘we’ must codify laws based on the assumption that all families are good and will follow forms favoured by a certain middle class sector of the electorate”.
You sound like a perfect minarchist then!
Minarchy is the search for a better system of government (i.e. a nightwatchman state) based on the notion that as people are inherently fallible, you need a state with cops to catch thieves and murderers and disease control against plagues and armies against invaders/barbarian raiders etc… but as states are also run by fallible people, you need as small a state as possible limited to JUST dealing with the genuine collective threats than cannot be faced via several action or civil association.
Only fools think there is a perfect end condition (or perfect end state)… minarchists on the other hand just seek ‘better’, not ‘perfect’, because people will never be perfect, which is precisely why we do not want to hand less than perfect people vast coercive powers over other people.
This presupposes that we all have the same nature, which we don’t.
No, we do indeed have the same ‘nature’, by which I mean the capacity to make moral choices. Fallibility and irrationality are all part of ‘human nature’ (or to be more accurate, part of the nature of reality), but the capacity for moral choice is the thing that defines us as different from other animals, and ‘rights’ proceed from that key defining aspect. The differences between people is irrelevant to that theory.
Perry, the question then is do we all have the same rights, objectively speaking?
No that is not really the question (by which I presume you mean “because people are different, do they have different rights?”).
Moral theories, which is what ‘rights’ are all about, are predicated on the capacity for moral choice. That is what I am saying when I say “rights are based upon human nature” (or the nature of humans).
Which moral choices a person makes is not the same question at all (i.e. it is a consequential argument from the principle rather than an argument about the principle), as rights are based on the first principle on the capacity to make those choices.
Frak, I took your reference to state schools
and bans on school prayer to mean that
such bans should go. For what it is worth,
my approach is to state that the government
should get out of the schooling biz anyway, so the
issue of school prayer falls outside
the political realm.
As for states going beyond defence of
natural rights, you need to define what those
other supposedly necessary functions
are. You sound as if your political worldview
embraces imposing values that you
consider right and proper. The trouble
with a lot of so-called social conservatives
is that they tend not to be very clear.
Human nature is slowly running the whole situation into the ground.
Every trick we try to make things better (and I imagine most socialists, conservatives, whatever, thought they were doing the right thing) simply makes things worse in the long term.
There have been periods when conditions did improve and the technology we have has brought vast improvements physically.
But is it sustainable? Will it be able to go forwards without something going severely wrong? One thing it is obvious to see coming over the horizon is the removal of freedom with intensive monitoring and control by whatever becomes the controlling authority.
One way or another we do seem to be heading for a nightmare.
Sure, minimal government is great as a holding operation.
But is human nature capable of holding it all together in the long term?
Of course it is, just as much as it is capable of running it into the ground again. There really is nothing certain in this life other than it being finite. All we can do is try to improve things as much as we can, for as long as we can. There really is no telling what is going to happen.
Right. And what I am saying is that different people subscribe to different moral theories. Your moral theory says that we all have a right to life. Someone else’s moral theory says that only certain people have that right.
It could well be that the difference between me and you comes down to “mere” semantics: I don’t like the term ‘rights’ because to me it seems to imply some kind of entitlement that is granted by some sort of authority. But the more important reason I don’t like it is that there are other terms that (for me) describe the nature of things much more truthfully, terms like ‘wants’ or ‘desires’ or ‘instincts’. So instead of saying ‘we have a right to life’, I say ‘we want to live’. This eliminates the need to explain ‘why’ or ‘who gave you the right’, and opens a way for people with similar desires and goals to cooperate and to form mutual agreements (AKA Moral Theories). At the same time it eliminates the moral need to force people with different desires and goals (=morals) to accept ours. Instead, we either leave them alone, or shoot at them if they try to shoot at us or to force their morals on us.
But is human nature capable of holding it all together in the long term?
Of course it is, just as much as it is capable of running it into the ground again. There really is nothing certain in this life other than it being finite. All we can do is try to improve things as much as we can, for as long as we can. There really is no telling what is going to happen.
Alisa, if human nature is okay why is the US Constitution so concerned with the limitation of the power of any persons or groups who might try to take too much authority?
Indeed, because that is the problem – human nature.
And the problem, now, is that it is possible. We are entering an age of technological capability in which it will be possible for those who agree among themselves to run things, those who are motivated to be political animals, in which they will be able to lay hands on the levers of that control.
Big Brother and all that has nothing on the technology for control that is just around the corner. Don’t you think?
And where will human nature be then?
So? Some people think Elvis is still alive 🙂
Not at all. At best, states (authority) are used to secure rights. Authority cannot be the source of rights.
Says who (other than you:-))?
JohnB: sure. All I was trying to say is that human nature includes both good and evil, and there is no telling which part is going to prevail next or to what extent. Take that same technology: it has been used to both tremendous good and unimaginable evil. Etc.
So then I am quite happy to look to that which is not a grumpy old man in the sky who insists on a lot of rules and regulations – nor Father Christmas!
I don’t feel that is illogical, wishful thinking, either. It seems fairly evident to me that for order to occur in randomness there must be an external organising influence. (:-))
Insofar as one can trust logic and reason.
All manner of moral philosophers… Rand explains the use of reason to objectively derive rights (or, to debug Rand, derive moral theories).
Here is something that will get a lot of a people to hate me (a lot of people argue that this is an aim of mind – and there may be some truth in what they say).
The only chance for libertarian ideas in the United States is via the Republican party.
Que for laugher and shouts that I am insane.
However, it is true – third party ism has gone nowhere. So it is time to really make an effort to WIN Republican nomination elections.
Make sure candidates that really do support lower taxes and less government SPENDING stand and WIN.
For if free market people can not even win Republican primary elections then you can just forget about general elections.
The Tea Party people want less government (they really do – it is not just “lower taxes” it is LOWER GOVERNMENT SPENDING, indeed it is mostly LOWER GOVERNMENT SPENDING that they are concered about).
The Tea Party people are engaged in every State in the Union to try and win Republican nomination struggles (because they know that third party candidates are, at best, pointless).
Libertarian Party people can either help or not.
But if it is “not” then Liberarian Party people are not fighting for the free market in any way that is going to make a difference.
“But Paul most of the Tea Party people believe in God”.
Not a problem for me because, horror of horrors, I do as well.
If you will not work with religious people (yes that includes people who are opposed to killing babies) then you will not win any election in the United States.
Because, sorry, but most (not all but most) of the secular side are statists – and that is not going to change. There are religious pro Welfare State types also – but “liberal Christianity” or the “Social Gospel” has been routed this year (in terms of people going to their churches) – every sermon (week after week) being on how”God” really means “the people” or “society” (the meaning of “liberal” sermons once one has translated the weird language into English) and how “health care is a right” (and so on) has taken its toll.
So the enemy is mostly secular (although not all secular people of course – and secular free market people are just going to have to learn to tolerate religious free market people, OR LOSE) and a few discredited (fake) “religious” people.
They do have a God – but he is not called “God” or “Santa”.
His name is Barack Obama.
Oh, sorry Perry, my fault, I did not mean it quite that literally:-) So, why cannot authority be the source of rights – unless it’s semantics again, and you and I do not mean ‘rights’ to be the same thing?
frak,
While I agree with some of your assertions as to the composite nature of human reality the question still arises from a policy standpoint as to what is Forced and what is allowed to naturally occur via culture. If what you say is true and so manifest, then the “invisible hand” of culture is enough to suffice. It is the battle cry of all Statists to cloak themselves in manifest Truth and set about reconditioning the non-complying chunk of humanity (whether a majority of significant minority thereby cancelling out the notion of manifest Truth) through force.
I, too, have changed throughout my life. I have gone from a realtively Statist Republican to a Libertarian Republican to an anarcho-capitalist to a minarchist. The one thing that holds true to me is the ease with which people use Force. How quickly people are to resort to it for every question that comes along. How our public policy is reduced to mailing fists for people who feel better having done Something even if that means swinging wildly in the dark.
So to get back to the start of things in this article and comment thread, God is the supposed all seeing being which watersheds into two general types for people – the benign shepherd looking out for you or the angry god ready to toss us into the fire. Which is what the Republicans are supposed to be in the mainenance of the Natural Order of Alpha Maledom? Meanwhile Santa Claus is the sweetheart handing things out willy-nilly but keeping The List of who is naughty and nice and the requesite invasion of privacy to do so – Democrats no?
While my inital post was supposed to be in the twee spirit if the original article, it stands that those who operate outside the accepted two party system, not only politically but culturally, are to some degree pariahs at this point, I truly believe at some point people are going to have to accept that Force and invasions of privacy and issuing paleo-fascistic doctrinaire edicts are not in the long term interest of individualism and liberty. In the whole lexicon of the Christmas gestalt it was this Rudolph who was cast out as different but eventually was turned to when the crises hit. I can only hope that we will eventually turn to a time when the proper fights are fought the proper way by the properly interested people and otherwise Force is abated. I don’t care to live in a society of scent marking and musks carried on prevailing winds turning into Social Policy. I may be an Alpha Male when it comes to protecting my wife and my children, and I comport with notions that spring from it – gun rights, personal rights of privacy et al – I don’t invert my instincts of survival into some canon that energizes a Statist horror of fascistic boobery.
It really is odd to combine the rather light-heartedness of the original objective of the article with weightier philosophical concepts but oh well. I will leave it up to others to compare and contrast Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, John Galt, and Rambo.
What Paul said.
An atheist may be electable in large parts of the US. However, one actively-hostile to religion doesn’t have a prayer outside of larger cities in California (and I’d bet against him to carry even LA or San Diego.)
And the Libertarian Party is, to put it politely, unready for prime time. IIRC, there is precisely ONE elected official with such an affiliation anywhere in the US[1]. If they didn’t piss away all of the last 2-3 decades on running pipe heads for President and a few Congressional seats, and instead worked on building a base of local seats and state legislators, they might have been relevant today.
[1] Sheriff Bill Masters, San Miguel County, CO. Hell of a nice guy. If I didn’t have to relocate I’d happily work for him.
Alisa,
Well, lets get down to specifics. What I was getting at was that libertarians seem unwilling to recognize that it is simply not possible for a society to be established without natural rights being violated to a certain extent. I understand this is a vague thing to say, but my point is that the art of statecraft is greatly aided by an understanding of human nature and libertarianism is not enough to do that – you need conservatism as well.
A fair point. I think a reasonable definition requires at the minimum: a personal belief that violating other humans’ life, liberty, or property is immoral. While I basically agree with the statement, I do think in extreme circumstances…given a special situation, violating natural rights can be morally justified, but these are quite rare exceptions.
Some libertarians do the whole sacrificing sanity for the sake of consistency in this regard (see a Samizdata post a couple years back on making the bris illegal in Britain written by I think Johnathan Pearce).
Perry,
You’re right in everything you say here. I would describe a libertarian as someone who believes it is immoral to violate the life, liberty, or property of another human being. This definition of libertarian, to me, screams out as something that is inherently special. If one truly and completely believes in that, then that person would not be willing to save one thousand lives by killing one.
Maybe I am cheapening the discussion by mentioning this, but it seems to me that violating natural rights seems…very natural based on a cursory glance at human history.
Okay, this is the meat of our disagreement. My basic point is simple: a society cannot be governed by a state that merely “punishes those who violate the life, liberty, or property of others” even putting aside national defense. You brought up families and I want to reiterate something I mentioned earlier that relates directly to it.
I understand that ‘family values’ chatter might be irritating to a secular libertarian sorta person like yourself, but the bottom line is that natural sexual relations means 10-20% of males get 70-80% of the females and…there is no civilization. Family values just refers to a set of cultural values and social norms in addition to some coercive fiscal pressures to insure the vast majority of males have a fair shot at getting a girl. Simple really. And yet so essential as we see the birth rates of western powers fall with the success of feminism.
There are other facets of human nature besides natural rights (which I agree…exist – or at least a belief that they do exist is beneficial because harm to others I do think is wrong usually – except given extreme circumstances) such as gender relations, which, without coercive laws that address these matters, society CANNOT GET ALONG and will eventually disintegrate into anarchy/civil way or be conquered – either way, be replaced by a society with a government that does recognize other facts about human nature that require un-libertarian measures.
Johnathan,
You are right about my reference and I agree that the state should not be involved in education, but what is troubling is that libertarians do not join social conservatives in being upset that voluntary school is prayer is not allowed. The personal should not be the political and a true libertarian lives by that creed and would join religious Christians in denouncing secular, public schools that prohibit religious people from living as they wish. I am not religious (and am culturally Jewish in a mostly Christian nation), but I find this prohibition completely repulsive and wrong.
You are right that I have probably not been clear enough, but you are wrong that I want to impose values that I consider right and proper. Facts about human nature, which, if ignored, spell disaster for the host country/thoughts:
1. The reality of gender relations. The vast majority of civilizations in human history recognize that without regulation of female sexuality (and, to a lesser extent, male sexuality) 20% of males get 75% of females and the ‘beta’ males are not invested in the success of the society. Results: falling birth rates, single motherhood, fatherless children, society is far more susceptible to outside military forces.
2. Religion of some sort that – karma, redemption, sacrificing a virgin on top of a huge structure, heaven, whatever, which soothes and reassures the masses that even though they are not rich/special/famous things are okay and life is good.
3. National defense sometimes does require a draft if another nation is invading. The draft is coercive but necessary to preserve the nation from being conquered by the foreign power.
4. There must be at least some taxes, which is legal theft, as we both know, in order to fund the basic functioning of government even in a night watchman state, such as jails, policemen, military, offices, etc.
5. In some old indian tribes old people were sent away to die once they became to old in order to have enough food and other resources for everyone else. If the elder person refused he/she was killed. This is not necessary in our current society, which enjoys such incredible wealth due to…well, ultimately free markets. But given certain special situations, this practice is necessary to survive.
6. Many ancient cultures practiced violent procedures, such as the bris, to lower the rate of disease to preserve life over the long run. This was not necessary but was considered by most reasonable people to be beneficial and therefore worth it to preserve the lives of everyone in the tribe/society over the long run.
7. Which brings me back to another basic failure of libertarians: to recognize the virtues of tradition, which are not obvious on the surface, but often have originally unintended/perpetually hidden benefits for society at large (such as the bris).
On this point, Hayek said it far better than I can (source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek ):
7. Someone whose moral beliefs is purely summarized by: ‘I will not violate the rights of another human being to life, liberty, and property’ is…not prepared to admit that this does not allow for the proper raising of a child. The nature of relations between the parent and child is not governed by natural rights as (it should) between fellow adults.
The tricky thing is where does one draw the line between adult and child? Reasonable people can and do disagree and one of them is wrong. Libertarianism, thus, cannot explain when in a person’s development it becomes immoral to violate his/her liberty (as, if he/she is a child it is okay, but if he/she is an adult it is not).
8. In many older civilizations, kings made examples of thieves/criminals by doing 5x to him when he merely did x. This was beneficial to preserve order in society by doing something that is immoral. I do realize that some libertarians might say that once you violate natural rights you have forfeited all your natural rights (I believe Locke for ex. said this) but I think that one may punish by doing x to a transgressor of natural rights only if the criminal did x himself.
I am sorry for the awfully long length and I would honestly be delighted if I got a response to at least some of what I am saying here. Thanks
Paul,
Honestly, I find people who think otherwise completely insane. Politics is, besides war, the ugliest, dirtiest, slimiest human affair on earth and libertarians have the gall to try to bring truth to the table. I am not being sarcastic.
People vote for two main reasons: A, to benefit themselves and B, for politicians who are either like them or with whom they would enjoy having a beer.
Since the vast majority of Americans do not understand that economic freedom benefits everyone overall in the long run (let alone have heard of Austrian Economics) and that social freedom is the foundation upon which civil society and civilized culture is based, they will not vote for libertarians to benefit themselves.
As for B, most libertarians are…unusual/strange generally and, therefore, not too down to earth (such as myself) and so unlikely to be voted for.
Most of the downsides (for libertarians) of republicans are social issues, which are really extensions/manifestations of the civil society/culture (such as God, guns, and gays) which would exist independent of government anyway (and should). The same cannot be said for the slime-fest that is the modern democratic party.
BTW, an observation: every 15 years a pro-liberty movement has popped up in the GOP: 1964 Barry Goldwater, 1980 Reagan Revolution, 1994 Contract With America, and now the Tea Parties.
Brad,
What I really mean is that as society develops, there INEVITABLY is violation of natural rights/liberty to achieve civilization. Gender relations being the primary + most reliable example.
Just want to note that you have hit on something that libertarians do not appreciate enough. Civil society is a beautiful thing, but often cannot be explained rationally. Traditions and religions result in every single society and there are reasons for it…which are in their specifics, specially evolved for that society. Fighting against these social institutions is not just fruitless but counter-productive: the masses need imaginary concepts to be happier (and I am not convinced I am better off without them…)
True. As a small-government conservative, I am a fellow traveller with libertarians in wanting government (MUCH) smaller and I am not a statist.
I might be misunderstanding you here, but actually the GOP is in the social sphere very much the defender of the beta male. Main evidence: ‘family values’ chat, which is partially an attack on feminism, but disguised. Also note the well-known gender-voting divide: males vote Republican.
I think most Americans actually agree that this is true, but they just don’t care.
Sunfish,
You greatly overstate the electability of someone who does not believe in God (and probably that Jesus died for his sins). As of 2008, according to Gallup, 53% of Americans would not vote for an atheist, which is higher than that same opinion for a gay person, Jew, Mormon, woman, black person, etc etc.
Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/some-americans-reluctant-vote-mormon-72yearold-presidential-candidates.aspx
Frak, to make a very long story short: I agree with much (not everything) you say, especially the parts that pertain to human nature as we (should) know it. My answer to virtually all of the problems you highlight is twofold:
1. There is no such thing as natural rights, only things we want or don’t want.
2. Morals are just sets of agreements between people with similar desires and goals.
If you try looking at things from this angle, even as a mere mental exercise, I think that many, if not all of the moral problems you, as well as libertarians are seeing will go away.
I have no idea what this means. Government rationing of women? Breeding quotas? I really truly do not understand your point at all.
I think that Frak’s point is that conservative values are geared to support the self-preservation of species. He could well be correct, in fact I suspect that to a large extent he is. It does not follow though that these values need to be forced on the said species. I think that most of us are pre-wired towards self-preservation by nature as it is, and that in fact these instincts will do their work much more effectively if we are left alone to our own devices. In other words, personally I support many conservative values, but I think that forcing them (as well as any other values) on others defeats the purpose. The reason is that values cannot be forced, only behavior can – and even that to a very limited extent.
Indeed… if that actually is what he is saying, which is not clear to me. Quite what any of that has to do with us alpha males getting all the chicks is a mystery to me, and quite what the state’s involvement has to do with this is also a mystery to me.
Stable social mores evolve and develop naturally, they are not legislated. Moreover civil society is naturally both conservative and resilient and does not require a great deal of state action beyond intermediating itself into dealing with criminals, stopping civil disputes turning violent and keeping barbarian hordes at bay. I find it funny that some conservatives (of a certain ilk) think civil society is so important and yet lack the confidence in the same civil society to just let it be both civil and social (as opposed to political and imposed), so they end up undermining the very social institutions they think so important by trying to legislate the shape of society.
Yep, there are control freaks on all sides. I suspect that it ultimately comes down to psychology rather than philosophy.
Ban all control freaks!
Sorry. Could not resist.
Best wishes for Christmas.
Seconded, including wishes:-)
Perry – as you know Cas Susteen (Regulation Commisar) has already suggested such measures (he did so years ago – and has not gone back on his “nudge” collectivsm, including in human breeding).
C.S. is one of the few of the long term top Obama advisers who is not a Marxist – he is more of a Fascist or Nazi (but I suppose this shows the President believes in a “broad church”).
frac and Sunfish – agreed with both of you.
The key battle right now is within the Republican party – not between it and the Democrats (and certainly nothing to do with the L.P.).
The struggle that matters is between the Tea Party people (who number MILLIONS of people) and the Republican party establishment (with their money and contacts – and experience in smear tactics).
If the Republican party establishment win the struggle they will not win any general elections (because most people who want to roll back government will just stay home) – and IT WOULD NOT MATTER IF THEY DID WIN ELECTIONS, as they have no idea what to do. They do not think in principled policy terms and have no way of thinking out what to do to reverse the damage to the United States that has been and is being done.
If the Tea Party people win there is a chance – no more than that, but a chance.
Yes most (but not all) of the Tea Party people believe in God – but athiest Libertarians are just going to have to accept that and work with them anyway.
Or be of no help at all.
Yes, anyone on ‘our’ side who will not work with people because they are religious is a waste of time. One has to take allies where one finds them.
Alisa,
In a way, depending on how you define ‘exist’, it is possible that I agree with you that natural rights do not exist…they certainly don’t in a literal way. I think that your thoughts are true (sort of), but very dangerous. It is important for most people to believe that rights exist, lest they decide harming others is okay. These need not be articulated in the ‘natural rights’ fashion, but a common ethic that hurting others is wrong is obviously critical to fostering a free society. And I think a better way of phrasing the second part is that ethics are guides to behavior that influence people to act in ways that are beneficial to others and when everyone acts in these ways, everyone reaps the reward. Moral beliefs are more…ultimate and absolute, which most people claim to have but when the shit hits the fan…it seems they often don’t.
Perry,
I am not trying to argue for a specific policy prescription. I am merely explaining that there are certain characteristics of societies that last that, if they are not met, will not last…they will not survive one way or another.
Many fundamentalist religions that have lasted many, many centuries, create their own communities, sheltered from broader society, and they thrive because they accept these realities. I am a big fan of liberty, but violating liberty is sometimes necessary to create/sustain civilization…how? It depends on the situation.
Alisa,
Preservation of the society to be more accurate, but yes.
Well, that is actually the whole point. Whoever is ‘in charge’ might need to violate liberty to preserve liberty in some way. This is all about survival. Thank you for pointing that out. It really is what I am getting at. Survival is a higher value than liberty and thus sometimes liberty must be violated to preserve the society. That’s what most of my vague rambling comes down to.
The truth is that if you force behavior for long enough, the values will follow. Just glance at the public school system, which puts this reality of human nature into practice on a vast scale. It’s brainwashing.
Frak:
I define in it in exactly the way those who subscribe to the idea of ‘natural rights’ define them: ‘we, as humans, have the right to this, this, and that’. ‘Why?’ ‘Because we do’. 🙂
‘Sort of’, as in ‘sort of pregnant’?:-) Either they are true or they are not. Dangerous? Well, truth can be dangerous, the question is to whom. Usually it’s to the bad guys.
Quite the opposite is true, frak, and I am saying this after much serious and prolonged contemplation, with my starting point exactly where you are now. Liberty is ultimately essential to sustain civilization, and the only violation of liberty that is not detrimental to the very existence of civilization is against those who would violate it themselves in the first place.
This is not more accurate, but merely redundant, since preservation of society is essential to the survival of the species.
The whole point is that no one should be or even needs to be in charge*, not in the sense that would include violation of liberty.
See above, because this statement being a fallacy cannot be stressed often enough.
Children are absolutely beside the point of this discussion, I am talking about adults – although to the extent that our betters are trying to keep children from growing up, and to turn adults into children, you may have a point :-
*There is a profound difference between X voluntarily delegating some of his powers to Y under clearly limited conditions, and between Y forcefully appropriating those same powers from X.
On the cooperation between the religious and atheists.
A classic example is Glenn Beck and the Ayn Rand Institute people.
Beck is a Mormon (indeed he is a convert to the Church of Latter Day Saints – and they tend to be more religious than people just born into it) and the Ayn Rand Institute people are atheists – open atheists.
Yet they not only cooperate – they are personal friends.
There are bigoted religious people and bigoted atheists – but people in either group do not HAVE to be bigoted.
On natural rights – call it natural law then (I do not much care). Both the Aristotelian tradition and the Stoic tradition have complex arguments for it (and so, contrary to popular misconceptions, does the Epicurean tradition – which was NOT about orgies and so on at all).
Or call it “Common Sense” morality (from Ralph Cudworth, and long before, to Harold Prichard and Sir William David Ross and after).
Or call it what you like.
Murder, rape and other violation are CRIMES (regardless of whether the state says they are – or even if the state does not exist), and if people say they are not, then most people are WRONG (period). And if they come to (for example) rape and murder local children one shoots the “morally divergent” or whatever one is going to have to call the evil these days.
frac and society.
I think I know what you are pointing at.
Family breakdown and sexual license – do I guess correctly?
Many societies have had elite groups who did all sorts of stuff. But now it is a commonplace.
In some nations (for example) it is now more likely that a child will be aborted than born.
Is such a society sustainable – of course not, for example if young girls have lots of sex they are likely to catch STDs that will make them sterile (the female body is even more vulnerable to such things than the male body).
“Condoms, condoms” they will not prevent cervical cancer (and the more sex a young women has the more her chances of this and other cancers go up – the female body was not really designed to be used like a public toilet by large numbers of men).
“But one can be done about the collapse of society – for example a decline in the fertility rate that may well lead to EXTERMINATION of such peoples as the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish, the Greeks and………).”
I do not know.
I do know that a lot of this spreading of vice is deliberate – the records of the “New Left” (Marcuse and the other Marxists joining with the followers of H.G. Wells and the Fabains, and the Bloomsbury Set, and the American Progressives……. in a wild mixing of factions and ideas with a common purpose of the utter destruction of the West).
But I do not think that any state action can reverse the damage (“big government conservatism” is an absurdity) – other than a few helpful things such as cutting off all taxpayer money to schools and universities (as these institutions are used to spread such destructive ideas and practices).
I also remember the wise words of Gladstone.
“Of one thing I am certain – it is not from the state that we will get any moral improvement”.
The Regulations of Cato the Elder (and so on) did not save the Roman Republic from moral corruption – in fact they just speeded on the process.
I suspect (cue for laughter from the “clever”) that only a revival of FAITH can save the West.
And real faith can not come from the state (a forced conversion is no conversion at all) – only from the heart.
Damn, you’re right; I just highly value the ethic of minding your own business and keeping your hands to yourself and think that if you do this then you are not doing anything immoral, but good ethics I consider to be less absolute things but still good things such as manners, charity, etc.
It is important to believe that not keeping your hands to yourself is wrong – not because “if, little Timmy, everyone were to do it, then society would start to revert to the state of nature and people would be unhappy” but because “little Timmy, don’t hit George because it is WRONG”. There’s a bit of this ethic that carries over into adulthood for most normal people and that is good thing. That is what I mean by dangerous, but, yes, you are right.
We are possibly talking past each other right now (sorry if I am misunderstanding you), but I basically agree with Hobbes that an absolute ruler is superior to the nasty, brutish, short lives that characterize the state of nature/anarchy. Before civilization, everyone MIGHT violate others’ liberties, but you don’t know until they do.
Incorrect. Specific example to illustrate my point: society A, which per person allows X degree of liberty is about to be invaded by society B, which per person allows .5X of liberty. I am saying that, if it is obvious that without a military draft society A will be defeated by society B, then it is probably morally justifiable. Please bear in mind this is coming from someone who realizes that Americans’ welfare and interests were not at stake in WWI and the USA should probably not have entered into it.
Mmmm our genuine difference. I agree with Hobbes that the state of nature sucks and you need rule of law to create stable civilization. Liberty is extremely valuable but it comes after this step. And once civilization is started there is always a little bit of a possibility that society will revert back to the state of nature and this must be protected against by violating liberty sometimes.
So, it’s a fallacy because it disagrees with Alisa’s beliefs? 😛 🙂
Well, if you force an adult to be a prison guard in Auschwitz in 1942 at the barrel of a gun, then that adult will eventually probably rationalize his actions and flee from the police in 1945 to avoid arrest. I never said behavior should be forced, but I said if it is forced values often come later. People rationalize their behavior in far more common and minor ways than my example everyday. It’s human nature.
Paul,
If you ever have the time to write a piece for Samizdata on this, I would be very grateful and interested to learn about it.
That is definitely part of it. It’s about preventing society from reverting to primal mating patterns (one man-one woman = civilization for practical and not necessarily ethical reasons), which is a key part of the state of nature/anarchy, etc. Basically, everyone gets +5 utility from civilization, but an individual breaking the mold gets +10, but if everyone does it then everyone gets +2, thus culture is here to keep the collective in line for everyone’s ultimate benefit, even though it is perfectly rational for one person to buck the trend (the prime example being a real stud banging tons of chicks).
This is not something I have ever heard of, but I would not be at all surprised if it is true. Traditions in most civilizations frown upon female promiscuity and this would be yet one more reason why this is. Rest assured, I was never taught this in my sex education classes in high school, though I did learn why abortion is basic female reproductive health and how to put on a condom.
As if I have not used enough of Samizdata’s comment thread (where are those t-shirts, Perry!? :P), I should point out that everything prior to Paul is directed to Alisa.
“I suspect (cue for laughter from the “clever”) that only a revival of FAITH can save the West.”
I recently came across a somewhat peculiar take on the social significance of Christianity by one Rene Girard. That isn’t a smart alec remark, but a link to the first of five quite interesting interviews.
I would only add the question of whether Christ himself would have supported any form of modern state coercion. Perhaps others are better qualified to answer that than I am.
Frak:
I disagree. It is much more important to understand why something is wrong. I have always made that attempt with my son, even when he was little. Of course there is a point where reason just isn’t enough, and this is where a parent must resort to the dreadful ‘because I say so’, but that is only when all else had failed.
See above, keeping in mind the age difference between you and me (I’m looking at 50 next summer):-P
You keep missing the point that such a reversion is only possible as a result of a violation of liberty in the first place. What you a suggesting is worst than fighting fire with more fire. You are actually suggesting burning part of the house to prevent it from burning to the ground later on. Haven’t you been told that there is no playing with fire? Or maybe they didn’t explain to you why? If so, I’ll be happy to elaborate:-)
On behavior and values: I don’t think that the guard would truly internalize these values, provided they were truly foreign to him in the first place. Rationalization is not the same as internalization.
Alisa,
Explanations are very important but first come rules. I agree with Sowell when he said “Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.”
And it is mildly ironic that on this issue the college student has a more strict outlook on raising kids (rules > explanations) than the (presumably) seasoned veteran. And 50 years young 🙂
I definitely see where you are coming from, but I don’t think you totally get where I am coming from. The state of nature = war of all against all. Nobody or everyone or most likely some people will violate liberty (theft for example) and having an absolute ruler that comes into power and sets down some firm laws and enforces them ruthlessly is better for everyone than the state of nature. The first liberty to be violated would probably be the rights of others into this absolute ruler’s physical domain…thus, the beginning of the nation-state. Preemptively violating liberty is beneficial to create the foundation for a country governed by the rule of law, which is worth it in the end. And playing with fire is actually a hobby of mine.
I think we are mostly arguing semantics here, but effectively there is not much of a difference, though I still maintain that some people WOULD rationalize it.
Alisa,
To further substantiate the absolute ruler issue: taxation of some sort would be levied very early in this process in order to fund the prisons, police force, military force, department of education necessary for a functioning government.
Since we both know that taxation = legalized theft from innocent victims, this is another very basic but concrete example of liberty being violated to, well, protect liberty by creating a state that is the precursor and core of civilization.
And I was obviously 100% kidding about the department of brainwashing/education. Sick joke, I know; I apologize for the poor taste. 🙂
frac.
A post on the various schools of moral philosophy from me (basically how, with different methods, they end up at the same place).
If I am feeling sadistic I may write such a piece – although I could have done a better job some years ago, when I was less over the hill and the study of such things was less decayed in my mind.
Frak, I’m having a crazy week, so I won’t be able to continue this discussion until a couple of days from now. If you are still interested, feel free to check back in a day or two. I really enjoy talking to you. And in any case, have a wonderful 2010:-)
Paul, I hope you are feeling sadistic. 🙂
Alisa, I will check back for your thoughts over the next few days. I wish in real life I’d meet less sheeple and more individuals like yourself who engage in serious discussion.
Frak:
Of course. The question is can they be civilized without an explanation, the answer is ‘no, they can’t’. Obviously, there are many types of situations when you act first and explain later (playing with fire?), but you always make an attempt at explaining.
Nah, you are probably just another example of the baby-boomer backlash:-)
It may be for a period of time, but eventually it is pre-programmed to degenerate back into the state of nature, as we will all soon see for ourselves yet again.
You seem to have missed the part where I pointed out that rationalization is not the same as internalization. It is not a value if it is not truly internalized.
Said who?
No problem, as long as you restrict in to your own house. Can you?
Alisa,
I do not think that parents should not explain their rules, but I do think that the rules are more important than the explanations. The practical implication being that even if a child (and I do not mean a 16 year old) successfully argues against a rule, he/she still must be subject to it. The explanation is there to encourage the child to abide by it.
I would add that besides the rules-making side of parenting, there are other types of activities including general teaching of lessons for life that are part of raising a child well. But again, the rules come before all else.
Heh, you don’t know the half of it, sister.
I really think Americans have become far too sheepish to mount a revolt against the federal government, either through secession or otherwise. Even the military has been overrun by leftist thinking: http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/11/08/general-casey-diversity-shouldnt-be-casualty-of-fort-hood/ It’s beyond pathetic; it is downright depressing.
In any case, I should clarify my statement. Having an absolute ruler is usually better than the state of nature, but not always. And, indeed, sometimes revolution that quickly gives way to a new state is a worthwhile course to pursue (if, for example, the new one will permit greater liberty).
Point taken. And after rethinking the terms you are using here, I contend that most people would rationalize it and some people would internalize it. Such is human nature.
Rephrase: it is inevitable that civilization (by almost any definition) only develops after a state emerges, where a state is defined as single group/rotating of individuals who wield a monopoly on the use of legitimate force.
I can and for the time being I agree to choose to. This is subject to change without warning for the good of liberty. 😉
They are the two sides of the same coin. Do you really think that the ‘what’ is more important than the ‘why’?
It depends what you mean by a ‘successful argument’. If you mean that he is still wrong but you are lost for words or time, or even patience, then yes, it’s back to ‘because I say so’. However, if he managed to actually prove you wrong, then your rule wasn’t all that good to begin with, was it?
I’m sure I know at least a bit of it though – nothing new under the sun, or at least not all that much:-)
Reiterate: says who? Elaborate: this seems to be the conventional “wisdom”, which isn’t necessarily supported by history (granted, not necessarily the version taught by the establishment).
It is a pleasure arguing with you frak. Feel free to continue here (subject to the continued approval of our gracious host), or to alternatively use my e-mail which I’m sure you know how to find. I promise to reply, although not necessarily as soon as I would like to.
Alisa,
Yeah, I do.
In some situations you would be right, assuming you tell him the real reason for the rule.
I would be genuinely interested in a counter-example, besides tribes of hunter-gatherers, which I admit is one, though very minor and rare, probable exception.