Locke and Load

Critique Of The Critique

I have checked out Mr. Huben's Critiques of Libertarianism previously referenced by Mr. Can't and feel I must comment. So here goes.

It is quite an easy thing to critique a political philosophy. These philosophies are developed over centuries, with many writers and thinkers adding their perspectives, refining meanings, applying principles. To take any one of these, or worse, parts of any one of these, and critique it as a stand-alone representation of an entire philosophical point of view is ridiculous. But quite easy.

Mr. Huben is, obviously, a liberal. Though I'm sure he would never admit to it (My philosophical ideas spring from skepticism, relativism, positivism, pragmatism, and humanism. When evaluating ideas, I work with the assumption that theories ought to match reality -- it is surprising how much theory matches reality badly. This tends to produce a preference for ideas that are valid (ie. work well) rather than theoretically correct (without working well.)). Because calling yourself a liberal means having to defend the Liberal philosophy. And if I were to take a look at the liberal philosophy as it has evolved, who would I go to as my representatives? Stalin? Mao? Castro? And, of course, Mr. Huben would indignantly deny that these people represent his philosophy, even if he did have the guts to admit what he is. And I would then pull out volume after volume of quotes and writings that concur completely with modern liberalism.

Political philosophies are nothing but a set of guiding principles by which people solve difficult problems. Modern liberals don't have this particular difficulty as their philosophy is purely pragmatic and follows no doctrine. They can ebb and flow as necessary and approach any issue as if it has never occurred before in the history of the world. They don't worry about contradictions. They know what is best.

However, most of us live by a set of broad principles that we believe explain the world around us and thereby guide our decisions. It is in the application of those principles that we encounter gray areas that must be worked out - through compromise, debate, and working solutions. Because the solution or compromise is not philosophically pure, does that mean the philosophy is invalid? Obviously not.

Having discussed Huben's main point, I would like to now take a few shots at some specifics. These are some of the most ridiculous statements I have read in some time.

The founders of the USA were a contentious lot, who hardly agreed on any one thing, let alone libertarian notions. It is well documented that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are compromises amongst them: few agreed wholeheartedly with any particular part. Thus, looking to the founders for "original intent" is silly: it will vary amongst them.

So, what he is saying is that since every vote on every article was not unanimous, we cannot ascertain the founders' original intent and should not even try? So I guess he would agree with the other extreme of the argument and that is that the written words mean exactly what they say, no more and no less, and any question that comes before the court that is not exactly answered by these words is kicked back to the states or lower court? No. Huben thinks the courts should be able to interpret the words in any way they please, based on anything they please.

The Declaration Of Independence is a rhetorical document, without legal standing in the USA. That status was a deliberate decision of the founders, not an accident. If it is purported to reflect the intent of the founders, then we can only conclude that they changed their minds when writing the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution.

Let me tell you what was a deliberate decision of the founders. Not to live in tyranny, and to pay for that decision with their own lives if necessary. To put the Declaration into a context of what it meant to the founding of a nation that had not, and indeed likely would not, come to be is idiocy. You're right, Mr. Huben, The Declaration of Independence is not a founding document of this nation. It is the founding document.

The foremost defenders of our freedoms and rights, which libertarians prefer you overlook, are our governments.

Well, there's always that irrefutable argument.

posted by The Man @ 6:12 PM