Daily Archives: May 2, 2017

Libertarians are still trying to claim the American Founding as theirs. One occasionally hears the argument that the principles of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are libertarian. One of the most recent instances of this claim residesin Nikolai Wenzels first-rate defense of libertarianism in Selfish Libertarians and Socialist Conservatives? (Stanford: 2017). Yet a closer look at the Founders thought about government makes clear that it was anything but libertarian.

Wenzel notes there are different types of libertarianism. He clarifies that unless I specify otherwise, I will use the term libertarian to mean minarchy. Minarchist libertarianism holds that government exists only to protect individuals rights. A libertarian government is forbidden from doing almost everything, Wenzel states. In fact, a libertarian government is empowered to do only one thing: defend individual rights.

Wenzels argument for a libertarian Founding rests largely on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Indeed, his claims do seem superficially persuasive.

The Constitution limits the federal government to the exercise of a few specific powers. Surely, this is a classic instance of libertarian philosophy limiting the sphere of government, is it not? As Wenzel argues, By and large, the enumerated powers granted to the federal government under Article I, section 8, are in line with libertarian philosophy. He recognizes that elements of the Constitution violate libertarian principles, but his overall evaluation is that The U.S. Constitution was largely a libertarian document.

The Declaration, argues Wenzel, is more explicitly libertarian. It declares that all possess natural rights and that governments are created to protect those rights. There, then, says Wenzel, is the political philosophy of the Declaration: The purpose of government is to protect rights. Period. He calls this a minimalist philosophy with which any libertarian would agree.

So far, all of this sounds quite convincing, but there is a fatal flaw in Wenzels argument. Both libertarians and the American Founders describe the purpose of government as the protection of rights. But by rights they mean two very different things.

For Wenzel, respecting others rights simply means refraining from coercion. The state exists only to protect rights, and therefore, the state itself may not engage in any coercion, except to prevent coercion. He argues that participants in immoral trades, such as The drug pusher, the prostitute, and the pornographer, do not violate others rights as long as they do not coercively impose their wares on others. Nor does the polygamist.

Wenzels coauthor Nathan Schlueter points out the problem with this position: Libertarianism essentially denies thatmoral harms exist and maintains that the only real injustice is coercion. Accordingly, it promotes a legal regime in which some individuals are legally entitled to harm others in noncoercive ways. Wenzel assumes that only coercion violates rights. The Founders profoundly disagreed.

Think again about the alleged libertarianism of the Founding documents. Wenzel makes a common mistake in assuming that the limitation of the national government to a few specific enumerated powers reflects libertarian belief. But this limitation has nothing to do with libertarianism. It has everything to do with federalism.

The federal government was only created to fulfill certain limited, particular purposes. It was not created to do everything the Founders believed government should do. Most of those functionsand, on the whole, those less compatible with libertarianismwere entrusted to the states. The fact that the enumerated powers of the federal government are largely consistent with libertarianism does not mean the Founders were libertarians. It means nothing at all, in fact. It is a conclusion based on only half the data.

Actually, the enumeration of federal powers is more an accident of history than anything else. James Madisons original proposal was that the national government simply possess blanket authority to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent. The Constitutional Convention ultimately chose to list its powers, believing this was less liable to abuse, but this decision was by no means dictated by the Founders beliefs about government.

As for the Declaration, it does not say that government exists only to protect individuals life, liberty, and property. A libertarian right to be free of coercion is not intended here. Instead, the Declaration states that life and liberty are included among the natural rights of mankind, as is something else referred to as the pursuit of happiness. The right to happiness was not simply sweet-sounding rhetoric. It was the centerpiece of the Founders political theory.

The Founders political theory was not libertarian, because they believed that the preeminent human right was happiness. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, for example, states: All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness (emphases added).

As the language makes clear, the rights of man could be expressed as a list of rights that includes life, liberty, and property. But the great right that encompassed all others was the right to pursue (or even obtain!) happiness. Assertions of this right to happiness appear in many Founding-Era writings, including other state constitutions.

The purpose of government, in turn, was to help people achieve happiness by promoting their good. Delegate to the Constitutional Convention James Wilson wrote one of the most thorough expositions of the Founding philosophyhis famous Lectures on Law. In them, he explains that the purpose of government is to promote the well-being of those subject to it: Whatever promotes the greatest happiness of the whole, that is what government should do.

Once again, this sort of talk is commonplace. Twelve of the 13 original states adopted a constitution in the Founding Era. Every one of these states described the purpose of government as promoting the well-being of citizens. The New Hampshire constitution of 1784 is typical, holding that all governmentisinstituted for the general good.

Because the general good includes the moral good, this meant discouraging immoral behavior. Wenzel speaks of voluntary drug and sexual matters as beyond the purview of a libertarian government. But such laws were universal in early America.

Thus Mark Kann writes in Taming Passion for the Public Good that the states right to regulate sexual practiceswas undisputed in early America, and Wilson notes bigamy, prostitution, and indecency as offenses subject to punishment on Founding political theory. Similarly, in Federalist 12, Alexander Hamilton cites the beneficial impact on morals as a justification for federal taxation of alcoholic imports.

The Founders used government to discourage other noncoercive activities, as well. In 1778, Congress recommended to the states suppressing theatrical entertainments, horse-racing, gambling, and such other diversions as are productive of idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners. In his book, The Peoples Welfare, William Novak details the extensive regulation of everything from lotteries and usury to Sunday travel, coarse language, and poor relief that was the norm during the Founding Era.

The American Founders believed that government exists to protect rights, just as libertarians do. But their understanding of rights was radically different from the libertarian understanding. Libertarians like Wenzel believe that protecting rights means prohibiting coercion. The Founders believed that protecting rights meant seeking the moral and material well-being of society. The American Founding was conservative, not libertarian. Libertarians will have to look elsewhere to support their beliefs.

Jonathan Ashbach is a PhD student in politics at Hillsdale College. Jonathan has worked in the hospitality industry and as assistant editor for the Humboldt Economic Index. His work has also been published on Patheos.

See the original post here:
No, The American Founders Were Not Libertarians - The Federalist

In a recent statement to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences entitled Towards a Participatory Society, Pope Francis spoke critically of libertarianism by name.I cannot fail to speak of the grave risks associated with the invasion of the positions of libertarian individualism, warnedthe Holy Father.

Throughout the memo, Pope Francis refers to libertarianism as a selfish ideology where only the individual matters, which minimizesand denies the validity of the common good. Heequates libertarianismwith anti-social terms whereonly the individual gives value to things and to interpersonal relations and therefore only the individual decides what is good and what is evil, concluding that the philosophy is radicalization of individualism.

In fact, the opposite is true: individualism is a radical minority under the larger umbrella of libertarianism.

As both a devout Catholic and a staunch libertarian, my Pontiffswords are indeed cringe-worthy, but also cause no distress to either my faith, nor to my political conclusions, for several reasons.

First, as Tom Woodsaprominentlibertarian and traditional Catholicrecently pointed out in an email, there is likely a great deal being lost in translation here. In his homeland of Argentina, it is highly improbable that Francis as Jorge Bergoglioever encountered libertarianism as we understandit in the United States. Consider that even words such as conservative, liberal, republican, and democrat all mean vastly different things in South American and European contexts, let alone the minority descriptor libertarian.

This consideration seems especially applicablewhen you read the rest of the Francis line I began quotingin the opening paragraph:I cannot fail to speak of the grave risks associated with the invasion of the positions of libertarian individualism at high strata of culture and in school and university education.That alone should cause any libertarian reading to give a moments pause, if not spray their drink. Does anyonelibertarian or otherwisefeel that libertarianismas we understand it is pervasively invading the culture and universities? If only that were the case! To me, this seems to be describing more of the selfish entitlement mentality which indeed has invaded our millennial culture and universities, andfits the rest of his expressed concerns.

Now, Im not pretending for a moment that Pope Francis would endorse ourunderstanding of libertarianism. I am plenty aware of his political leanings, but I do always keep his statements in context of his Argentinian background, as well as the proper functions of his office. As I find myselfexplaining with increasing frequency, the Catholic teaching onpapal infallibility applies only to matters of faith and doctrine whichare specifically spoken ex cathedra. In other words, while Catholicscertainly owe it to the Petrine Office to respectfully consider and humbly reflect on thecounsel of the Successor of Peter, it is completely fine to ultimately hold differing opinionswith the Pope on non-doctrinal matters.

With even a basicknowledgeof the 1,984 year history of the Catholic Church, one realizes that popes can be and have been wrongsometimes very wrongin their personal opinions and behavior. St. Catherine of Siena is famous for firmly, yetrespectfully, correctingPope Gregory XI during the Avignon Papacy, just as St. Paul corrected Christs first Vicar, St. Peternot for false doctrinal teaching, but for failing to practice as he preached. The Church has survived far FAR worse scandal and crisis than a few controversial opinions and remarks. Catholicseither trust Matthew 16:18, or you dont.

In the event that the Holy Father is indeed addressingour libertarianism, which has been the immediate reaction, I assert that he is clearlyonly familiar with Ayn-Rand-style Virtue of Selfishness individualism, as he consistently equates the two.

Just as it is said about the Church, libertarianism is also a house with many doors, meaning converts enter from any variety of origins following differentpaths in the face or adversity or in search of truth. Some arrive at libertarian conclusions through selfish individualistic philosophies such as Ayn Rand, while others arrive at libertarian conclusions through selfless anarcho-pacifist or anarcho-distributist philosophies, such as Servant of God Dorothy Day. The philosophies of Rand and Day are polar opposites, despite both ending up under the libertarian umbrella in terms of political applications. With this in mind, it is very common for those first introduced to one of the many libertarian philosophies to presume it is representative of the whole, which a mistake I once made as well.

For me, the epiphany came when I realized that anyphilosophy or model of governancecan be squared with libertarianism, so as long as its voluntary, witheveryone participating of their own free will. Consider that convents and monasteries are very successful models of socialism, with no private property, communal ownership, each receiving only according to his need, etc. In fact, many of these religious housesare far older and more successful than any modern government! This only works, however, because it is purely voluntary on the part of the participants, who all share the same motive and goals. However, once socialism is forced upon others via the state, historically, it always gets rather ugly and fails miserably. Convents and monasteries are examples of free-market socialism, so to speak, because participants could freely walk away at any time or violate their rule without threat against their lives, liberty, or property; they persist, however, because of their voluntary vows.

Libertarianism, therefore, is simply the doctrine of free will and speaks nothing of ones motive or intention.

Ido stand with Pope Francis in decrying radical individualism as a worrisome selfish philosophy. Even where I agree with many of the practical applications of individualistconclusions, I believe themotive is misguided. At the same time, Ipromote voluntaryism as a peaceful libertarian philosophywhich seeks tomaximizethe common good and encourageacommunitarian frameworkpromoting a selfless ideal. My hope and prayer is that through this mistranslation or misunderstanding, the Holy Father may have an opportunity to at leastrecognize thisdistinction, if not fully promote voluntary governancelike that of Vatican Cityas a model for all societies.

Mark Cavaliere is a devout Catholic husband and father, an activist for life, and an advocate for liberty. As a voluntaryist libertarian, Mark asserts each individual's right to bodily autonomy from the moment one's body biologically comes into existence at conception through natural death. He is the Founder & Director of the Southwest Coalition for Life, spearheading a campaign that led to the closure of the abortion facility in Las Cruces, in spite of the fact that New Mexico is one of the most abortion-friendly states in the nation. He is now working to end the violence of abortion in Santa Teresa and El Paso, not through laws or politics, but by rallying the church community to help neighbors in need.

See the original post:
Pope Francis Mistakes Libertarianism as Radical Individualism - NM Politico (blog)

Being Libertarian

Libertarian Living vs. Libertarian Governing Being Libertarian As a libertarian, I'm often called a hypocrite for my personal views on the way I should live my life, because I don't live libertarianism. But to me this is a very basic misunderstanding of what libertarianism is. I was raised Mormon, and I consider ...

See the original post here:
Libertarian Living vs. Libertarian Governing - Being Libertarian

Being Libertarian (satire)

The Libertarian Revolution The Right Engle Being Libertarian (satire) A libertarian society cannot grow overnight. This should be obvious to anyone living in today's world of wall-to-wall government authority. Yet, many libertarians speak as if simply removing the state (from all aspects of life, at all possible speed ...

Read the rest here:
The Libertarian Revolution The Right Engle - Being Libertarian (satire)