Libertarianism’s Folly: When the “Live and Let Live” Mentality Becomes Vice

By Selwyn Duke

While there was a time when I might have described myself as a libertarian, those days are long gone.  In fact, I don’t even call myself a conservative anymore.  Oh, don’t get me wrong, I agree with libertarians on many issues, and their governmental model is vastly preferable to what liberals have visited upon us.  Yet there is a problem: However valid their vision of government may be, their vision of society renders it unattainable.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.  But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.  It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”  Now, I certainly agree with the first sentence, as it’s merely a statement of the obvious.  But then we have to ask, what constitutes “injurious”?  And, when determining this, do we completely ignore indirect injury?  Then, if we do consider the latter, to what extent should it be the domain of government?  (When pondering these matters, note that the Founding Fathers didn’t reside on the modern libertarian page.  They certainly would have, for instance, supported the idea of state and local governments outlawing pornography and would be appalled at what is now justified under the First Amendment.)

However you answer these questions, you should question Jefferson’s second sentence.  While it may make sense on the surface, it ignores that spiritual/philosophical foundation affects morality.  And what happens when a people becomes so morally corrupt they elect a government that picks your pocket or breaks your leg?

Lest there be any misunderstandings, I don’t propose that our central government establish religion.  But I do have a problem with the implication that a person’s most fundamental beliefs — which influence action — always do me “no injury,” as this leads to a ho-hum attitude that lessens the will to uphold proper traditions and social codes.  And if you doubt the power of belief, wait until a European nation turns predominantly Muslim and watch what ensues — then get back to me.  

And today’s libertarians have gone Jefferson one better.  They ignore not merely religion’s effect upon morality but also morality’s effect upon government, as they apply their ideology not merely to law but also social codes.  Indulging “moral libertarianism,” they not only oppose anti-sodomy and anti-polygamy laws, they also look askance at social stigmas that could discourage such sexual behaviors.  Not only do they oppose obscenity laws, they’re wary of courageous condemnations of the obscene.  Even that most intrepid libertarian, Glenn Beck, is guilty of this.  When asked during an appearance on the O’Reilly Factor whether faux marriage was a threat to the nation in any way, he laughed and mockingly replied, “A threat to the country?  No, I don't . . . .  Will the gays come and get us?”  I don’t know, Glenn, ask the Europeans and Canadians who criticized homosexuality and were punished under hate-speech law.  

Quite fittingly, right after Beck answered, he quoted the “It neither picks my pocket . . . .” part of the Jefferson quotation, espousing the libertarian idea that we really shouldn’t care what others do as long as they don’t hurt anyone else.  To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, however, this is much like having a fleet of ships and saying that you don’t care how the vessels function as long as they don’t crash into each other.  Obviously, if they don’t function properly, they may not be able to avoid crashing into each other.  So libertarians may say “Whatever works for you — just don’t work it into government,” but what about when someone doesn’t work properly?  Thinking that personal moral disease won’t infect the public sphere is like saying, “I don’t care what a person does with his health — carry tuberculosis if you want — just don’t infect me.” 

And the proof is in the electoral pudding.  Did you ever observe what groups vote for whom and wonder why?  Churchgoing Christians cast ballots overwhelmingly for traditionalist candidates while atheists and agnostics support leftists by wide margins.  In fact, consider this: Virtually every group involved in something those Neanderthal Christians call sinful or misguided votes for leftists.  Goths?  Check.  Homosexuals?  Check.  Wiccans?  Check.  People peppered with tattoos and body-piercings?  Check.  You don’t find many vampirists, cross-dressers or S&M types at Tea Party rallies.   

In light of this, do you really believe there is no correlation between world view and political belief?  In fact, is it realistic to say that there isn’t likely causation here?  And what can you predict about America’s political future based on the fact that an increasing number of people are embracing these “non-traditional” behaviors and beliefs?  The irony of Jefferson’s statement is that whether our neighbor believes in twenty gods or no God, he will likely vote the same way (this is at least partially because paganism and atheism share a commonality with liberalism: the rejection of orthodox Christianity).  And equally ironic is that he will elect people who do injury to the very Constitution Jefferson helped craft.      

So there is a truth here hiding in plain sight: If someone is not a moral being, how can he be expected to vote for moral government?  Do you really think a vice-ridden person will be immoral in business, when raising children and in most other things but then, magically somehow, have a moment of clarity at the polls?  This is why John Adams warned, “Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private [virtue] . . . .”

Despite this, libertarians tend to bristle at bold moral pronouncements that would encourage private virtue.  As was apparent when I penned this seminal piece on the Internet’s corruptive effects, they fear that, should such sentiments take firm hold, they will be legislated and forestall the libertarian utopia.  But they have it precisely backwards.  As Edmund Burke said:

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites . . . .  Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.  It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.

Thus, insofar as the libertarian governmental ideal is even possible, it is dependent upon the upholding of morality, upon the “controlling power” of social codes.  For not only do they help shape moral compasses, thereby increasing governance “from within,” insofar as that internal control is lacking, the social pressure attending the codes serves to govern from without.  And insofar as this social control is lacking, governmental control fills the vacuum.  As freedom from morality waxes, freedom from legality wanes.

Ultimately, the tragic consequence of the libertarian mentality is that it guarantees the left’s victory in the battle for civilization.  This is because, in libertarians’ failure to fight for hearts and minds in the cultural realm, they cede it to leftists, who aren’t shy about advancing their “values.”  And proof of this is in the social pudding.  You see, if talk of establishing social codes and traditions sounds stifling, know that we haven’t dispensed with such things — that is impossible.  Rather, the left has succeeded in replacing our traditional variety with something called “political correctness,” which describes a set of codes powerful enough to control the jokes we make and words we use, get people hired or fired, and catapult a man to the presidency based partially on the color of his skin.

As for elections, political battles need to be fought, but they are the small picture.  For if the culture is lost, of what good is politics?  People will vote in accordance with their world view no matter what you do.  Thus, he who shapes hearts and minds today wins political power tomorrow.    

The libertarian chant, “I don’t care what you do, just lemme alone” sounds very reasonable, indeed.  But as hate-speech laws, forcing people to buy health insurance and a thousand other nanny-state intrusions prove, when people become morally corrupt enough, they don’t leave you alone.  They tyrannize you.  A prerequisite for anything resembling libertarian government is cast-iron morality in the people.  And we should remember that, to echo Thomas Paine, “Virtue is not hereditary.”

For this reason, neither is liberty.  Scream “Live and let live!” loudly enough in the moral sphere, and in the hearts of men the Devil will live — and the republic will die.

    This article was first published at American Thinker

           © 2010 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved

Comments

[Philip France]

Once again, Selwyn Duke is 100% correct.

In reading the outstanding book “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” the author, Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D. speaks of a term that he refers to as “mutuality”. He speaks of this as a necessary component in the growth to human maturity and adult competence. Mutuality dictates that it is in our self-interest to get along with, and even help others voluntarily. To do so, and to do so effectively, absolutely requires a moral center.

That is not to say that libertarians or even atheists/agnostics cannot participate in mutuality. Instead, it absolutely requires of them to adapt and adopt moralistic concepts, whether or not they are aware of or appreciate their origins. To paraphrase one of our nation’s leading Founders, John Adams; our Constitution is intended for a moral populace and that, absent morality, it is wholly inadequate.

It is in our own understanding and operation of moral codes that we govern ourselves to the greatest extent of individual liberty. When we fail to do so, as Selwyn has indicated, a tyranny forms in the vacuum. This is happening before or very eyes with our current Presidential administration. The shame is that we have nearly 200 years of United States history that validates Selwyn’s points.

[Robert Berger]

This nation as a whole has gone so far to the right
that it makes Attila the Hun,Genghis Khan,Tamerlane and Torquemada look liberal. It's gone so far right it's in another dimension,a sort of bizarro world where any one who has even the slightest disagreement with the current conservative orthodoxy is automatically labeled a "socialist,Marxist and communist",including me, a pretty moderate kind of guy who has never held anthing remotely close to real left-wing views and who is considered much too conservative by real left-wingers.
Selwyn,you are anything but a libertarian.If fact,you are a right-wing,authoritarian fanatic and an intolerant Christian.

How can any one who approves of anti-sodomy laws be a libertarian? They are as dated,inappropriate,barbaric and stupid as chain mail in today's US army. Any one who is hostile to homosexuals and homosexuality and ignorantly believes that gay people are evil and dangerous is no libertarian.
People like you,who are always blathering about the need for "limited" government still want unlimited power for the government to pry into our bedrooms and to tell women what to do with their bodies. With freedom like yours,who needs tyranny?

[A high school student]

I am sorry Mr. Berger, but I think that you have some sick attraction to Mr. Duke's posts. I believe that every man has his right to his opinion, but this is too much If it bothers you so much, you don't have to read it, you can read other things like Time magazine or Rolling Stones, they have the same mindset as you do. If you are trying to make a defense on liberalism, you can contact him directly and speak with him instead of filling the comment space with the same rant that "This nation as a whole has gone to far to the right". You can even start your own "robertberger.com" website if you wish to do so. I won't try and argue what is wrong with your argument, I leave that to Mr.France and other commentators. I just find it kind of funny that you are so angry but don't come up with solutions, but you are just trying to bash Mr.Duke and his views.

[Philip France]

Welcome to this blogstream High School Student.

You are clearly more cogent than the man four times your age that you criticize.

To crystallize our mutual points, let's begin with Mr. Berger's opening salvo:

"This nation as a whole has gone so far to the right"

Let's examine this together using Robert's opening statement:

This nation as a whole has gone so far to the right... that we have elected the most far left, radical, Marxist/Pan-Leninist president in our history. (Recommended reading: "Trickle Up Poverty: Stopping Obama's Attack on Our Borders, Economy and Secrity" by Dr. Michael Savage, PhD and "Conduct Unbecoming: How Barack Obama is Destroying the Military and Endangering Our Security" by Robert "Buzz" Patterson, Lt. Col. USAF (Ret.).

This nation as a whole has gone so far to the right... that our Vice President is a walking gaffe machine and perhpas the most stupid man to ever hold office. Naturally, he is a committed and life-long liberal.

This nation as a whole has gone so far to the right that we have as the Speaker of our House of Representatives the criminally insane lunatic Nancy Pelosi, a radical liberal who simiultaneously espouses fealty to her Roman Catholic "faith" and yet presides over the most perverted and deviant voting district in the United States. Claiming to be a Catholic and marching alongside sadomasochists and naked homosexuals in San Francisco's Folsom Street Festival (do a YouTube search if you doubt me) is evidence that this woman suffers from severe psychosis.

These three individuals occupy our highest offices right now. Let's re-examine Robert's leading statement: "This nation as a whole has gone so far to the right".

It is abundantly evident that this man has lost his mind.

[A high school student]

Thank you Mr. France for the response. I have typed up about four different responses to your points, but I have decided not to post it because you and Mr. Duke have covered everything that needs to be discussed. It is nice to have a website that I can go to get relevant information with out having to listen to the propagated secular trash on the T.V. that people call news. It is nice to hear when someone gets the facts right and to analyze things with common sense (which or government does NOT have)in mind. It is sad when a late teen can look at America today and see very clearly what is wrong with it, when many people that are much older than me with college degrees miss the point either through ignorance or arrogance. Sorry for digressing there and thank you for responding to my response.

[Philip France]

Dear High School Student,

It is a blessing and reassuring to see (read) a young person with such clarity of mind and so wholesome a mind-set.

My top intellectual hero is Dr. Michael Savage, PhD. I have others, such as Selwyn Duke, Professor Ellis Washington (you must search the archives at www.wnd.com to find his brilliant articles), Jeffrey T. Kuhner at the Washington Times and many, many others. The Bible says that there is wisdom in a multitude of counselors.

Dr. Savage has given the best analogy of leftists like Barack Obama and his sychophants like Robert Berger. He compares their worldview by declaring that their optic chiasma is inverted. He is 100% correct. The optic chiasma is the apparatus in mammals that translates signals stimulated by optic nerves to the brain for processing. Modern liberals and leftists indeed have this inverted. They see and experience the very same things as you and I but their brain interprets them in opposition to reality. They see evil as good (i.e. illegal immigration, radical Islam. militant homosexuality, abortion/infanticde, socialism) and good as evil (conservatism, rugged individualism, the cherishing of human life, the promotion of borders, language and culture and America's profound Judeo/Christian heritage).

Many years ago I was a youth minister and I cherish those memories and the lives that I influenced toward beneficial outcomes. I am so delighted that you have discovered Selwyn Duke's website and that you have the courage and articulation to make your opinions known.

If you can, please read the books that I mentioned in my previous post. Knowing this will establish you as a leader of your generation.

May God bless you with abundance, good health and long life.

[A high school student]

Thank you again Mr.France for your words of encouragement. I also know of Dr. Savage and Proffesor Washington. My father likes to read Professor Washington's posts and (I should think that this is the same person that does this program but correct me if I am wrong) the Savage Nation on the radio. It was only until a year ago that I became aware of these people (including Mr.Duke) and I am sure glad I did. I want to let you know that I have saved the suggested reading on my note pad and will read these books during my freetime. You don't have to respond to this, we can share opinions on Mr. Duke's next post.
May God bless you and may he make this nation great once again.
Amen

[Whitey Lawful]

The laissez faire - government free crowd and their license party (L.P.), have profaned the name-term. It's good you capitalized it. Their global 'free-market' world of dismantled nation-states and promiscuity as a commodity needs to be told. Many of them have attempted to distinguish themselves from us bigots... Our paleoconservative disdain for The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - is no claim for those intellectuals, lacking character.

[Ohio Journeyman]

Let's keep Mr. Berger in our prayers, shall we? And not with arrogant and condescending prayers such as asking God to reveal Robert's ignorance but, rather, with humility and compassion, asking that God reveal the depth of His love for Robert to Robert!

Remember, we can not reason with the lost - it is like fighting the wind. Only the love of Christ can remove the scales of worldly deception. So let's pray unceasingly for a revival, not just in this nation but in the world - that He will open hearts and minds to His love and grace!

And in so doing, let us be thoughtful and sensitive to the fallout of our "Christian" nation's sins - first against the native American, then the black African, even the native Hawaiian, and, yes, innocent Koreans and Vietnamese, not to mention those spiritually lost victims of "wash-boarding"!

Amen?

[Julian]

I would just like to point out that Libertarianism, which is different then what crazy radical social conservative right wing nut jobs claim is Libertarianism, is based on one very important principle called the Non Aggression Principle. This principle states that no member of the society is allowed to act in a manor that directly or indirectly causes aggression or incites aggression towards any other member(s) of the society. Beyond that the Non Aggression principle is also applied to children which pretty much only leaves the Montessori or similar methods of teaching and raising children. Those who do not abide or adhere to this are not libertarians and in a libertarian society would be subject to punishment under the law for child abuse.

As an actual Libertarian I find it very frustrating that political writers still do not grasp the difference between when someone claims they are Libertarian and what a Libertarian really is. As Dr. Rossiter said "it is in our self interest to get along with, and even help others voluntarily." which is what Libertarians believe. It is actually the reason Libertarians believe in limiting government, because innately people are social creature who need each other to survive and when people are not abused and damaged psychologically as children they grow into adults who do not wish to aggress against others any more then they wish to be aggressed upon because they, along with elephants, dogs, monkeys and dolphins, have mirror neurons.

Please do research before criticizing Libertarianism, the amazon kindle download for computer and mac is free and their are many books on Libertarianism, Libertarian Ethics, Libertarian Philosophy, Et Cetera on their for free or a few dollars.

One Final Thing, Glen Beck is not a Libertarian and I am fairly sure that just about every Libertarian in this country would be willing to kill Glen Beck because it would increase the gross utility of the society.