Locke and Load

Damn You, Huben!

Arlington High School science teacher Mike Huben has an extensive anti-libertarianism page online called Critiques of Libertarianism. Note that both Huben and I use the term "-ism," which clearly distinguishes the realm of libertarian thought from the Libertarian Party itself. His is, as is mine, a war of ideas, not of politics. Politics (better said: the field of policy and politicians) represents little more than opposing teams avoiding scandals of their own, and sniffing around for scandals across the aisle.

Huben openly acknowledges that his "philosophical ideas spring from skepticism, relativism, positivism, pragmatism, and humanism," all of which is longhand for "American liberalism," so this way it seems odd that Huben has chosen libertarianism (in lieu of American conservatism) as his ten-year bête noir. There are two general explanations as to why an individual liberal might believe libertarians to be even greater ideological foes than conservatives:


1. Liberals mistake libertarians for being "even further right" than conservatives. Libertarians write of abolishing the social security system, while conservatives write of privatizing and reforming it. Libertarians speak of sending all health and human services to the state level, as conservatives speak of trimming the fat. Libertarians dream of eviscerating the departments of Education, Commerce and Agriculture, where conservatives can only hope to reduce the rates of increase in the funding of those departments.

But in such an analysis, the liberal errs in using the terms "conservative" and "Republican" interchangably. Granted, the GOP is a more conservative tent than is the Democratic Party, but political realities require that the tribe members make long and frequent trips away from the reservation. The true conservative shares with the true libertarian the wish to abolish social security, to send the HHS to state levels, and to eliminate the USDA. But the Republican is not allowed to say this. It all comes off sounding too honest. Yet totally bankrupt of any sort of functioning political party, the libertarian can simply say whatever is on his mind. Counterintuitively, this is what makes him powerful.


2. Liberals mistake libertarians for being "further left" than conservatives, and are therefore irked by the libertarian's refusal to cross the remaining distance (and adhere to a more enlightened, liberal position), if only for reasons of political expediency. The attentive reader will note that I have alleged that libertarians are neither "further left" nor "further right" than the GOP. What gives? Are they some sort of geographical oddity? Equally remote from all other other points of view?

In truth, the ethics of governing do not allow for distinctions of "left" and "right," which never meant much anyway. Maybe the most notable example is this, the question of whether or not Hitler was a leftist. Virtually no one alive would answer affirmatively, even though he wrote that "all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished," and that "all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people." Even though he demanded "the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels," that "all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out," and that government provide "extensive development of provision for old age." Even though the diminutive "Nazi" is short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or, National Socialist German Workers Party.

Or take the issue of capital punishment, seen as some as quintessentially right-wing (and quintessentially American), albeit a policy used disproportionately by China and DROC. Or take the separation of church and state, widely (and very inaccurately) portrayed as an expressly left-wing issue, the misperception of which is evidenced by state-sanctioned religions in Bolivia, Costa Rica, Greece and Cambodia, to name only a few.

In short, government exists to protect rights. Those rights you believe to be inalienable, those rights you believe to be bunk, and those steps you will allow to preserve those rights you do recognize are what indicate your political leanings. Clearly there is no way to map the spectrum of rights vs. not-rights two-dimensionally, so the task is clearly futile in the one-dimensional world of left-wing vs. right-wing.


All that said, I'm glad that Mr. Huben considers libertarianism a worthy intellectual opponent. I am grateful that he has taken the time to write.

So coming up next: a libertarian reponds to Huben's Non-Libertarian FAQ.

posted by Immanuel Can't @ 11:01 AM