Image: Wikimedia Commons
It seems at some point in their journey many conservatives follow the sirens’ song into at least a brief flirtatious fling with libertarianism. Some wake up to the reality of libertarianism and return home; others do not. As someone who more than casually flirted with libertarianism, this is a topic I’ve spent some time contemplating. While, like many forms of populism, it looks appealing on the surface, the more deeply I considered libertarianism, the more I came to reject it. Here are my thoughts on why, as both a conservative and a Christian, I cannot accept libertarianism.
Libertarianism begins with a rather Rousseauean “social contract” view that all government is somehow inherently evil, and therefore something to, at best, only be tolerated. All libertarian writings of which I am aware echo this notion of government as at best a “necessary evil.” Libertarians consistently describe government as “use of force” against the individual. This blog post sums up quite well the thought consistently expressed by prominent libertarian thinkers like Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods.
This view of government as a “necessary evil” stands in stark contrast to the authentic conservative and authentic Christian views of government. Instead of being something “imposed” on man by other men as part of some sort of “social contract,” the classical Thomistic and Kirkian view understands that man is social by nature and therefore sees just government as an inherent good ordained by God. Man, by his very God-given nature, seeks not only the company of others, but order as well. This is why man naturally forms families, from which society develops. Such collections of people, again by their very nature, demand order. Providing a framework for order, in other words promoting the “common good,” is the true purpose of just government.
Therefore, we may conclude, in deference to the libertarian position, just government is both good and necessary. Problems do not inherently arise from government itself. Instead, problems arise from unjust and irresponsible governments. On this point alone, conservatives should reject libertarianism. Yet, as we look closer at libertarianism, we uncover even more concerns.
As to my specific arguments against libertarianism, first, one cannot simply pick and choose what a philosophy means. The choice of adopting a particular philosophy involves accepting the entire framework of that philosophy. If we pick and choose from among various beliefs, then we have in fact created something new, no matter how loudly we might claim otherwise. While I radically oppose the ideas of someone like Nietzsche, for example, I can at least respect his intellectual honesty in taking his ideas to their logical conclusions; of course as a result of his radical ideas about the supremacy of the individual alone, we mustn’t forget he died broke, alone, and insane.
Thus, when it comes to libertarianism (as a philosophy, not merely a political party), it rests on the foundation that man alone is the highest good. We find such a notion inherent in the libertarian claim, “The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government.” For the libertarian, the individual is the most important. Yet, this is false. Man is not the highest good. God alone is the highest good. Libertarianism makes the same mistake as every other tyranny by placing man under man – and like every other tyranny, refuses to acknowledge its fundamental mistake.
Additionally, if individual rights are all that matters, a fundamental question comes immediately to mind. Namely, where does my right to do as I please end and your right to do as you please begin? I suspect the answer would be when my actions (engaged in through my “rights”) begin to “infringe” on your “rights.” Yet, how do we clearly define “infringement?” If we say it’s merely by convention, then by the philosophy of libertarianism itself, this is an arbitrary infringement on my rights – and therefore should not bind me. If we say there is an objective standard, then the entire basis of libertarianism (the individual’s rights are the highest order) collapses, for if objective standards (i.e. the “common good”) exist, it is not simply about “individual rights.”
Another example of libertarianism placing man at the pinnacle comes from the Libertarian Party website, “Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property.” In other words, each individual is his own god. I can do what I want, when I want; and you can do what you want, when you want. As an aside, this is why a certain candidate for president thinks it fine for a theocratic orthodox Islamic state to obtain nuclear weapons despite the fact their leadership has made clear their intentions for those weapons (as the Party website proclaims: “Live and let live is the Libertarian way”) – since each individual is his own god, no one has any claim to objective truth, so why would we have any say over what another chooses to do? We need go no further than this to see such a philosophy inherently degenerates into anarchy.
However, we can go further: we do not have a “right” to do anything we want with our body. Even secular states have understood this fact for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Yet, for Christians, this point becomes even clearer. As children of God, created in His image and likeness, our bodies do not belong to us alone, but rightly to the One who created them. His Law makes clear there are indeed limitations on our actions and the use of the bodies He granted us. If I borrow your car, may I do with it anything I please, including willfully or irresponsibly destroying it? Certainly not! Yet, we believe the exact opposite is true with the greatest gift in the universe: the bodies given us by a loving God. Therefore, the Christian must immediately reject the notion that, “Each individual has the right to control his or her own body…” There are limitations on our choices and actions; yet these are not imposed on us from other men, but flow from dictates of the Divine law.
Second, I believe the Founding Fathers would vehemently disagree with the notion, “The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government.” I believe they made very clear and repeated arguments that the only proper purpose of government is the representation of those it governs. The American War for Independence was not fought over taxation; it was fought over representation.[1] Even totalitarian regimes claim they exist only to protect the individual. In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels argue that communism provides far greater protection for the individual than does capitalism because it frees the masses from the clutches of the “oppressors.” It is protection of representation for the governed, not merely “rights” which differentiates a representative Republic such as ours from other forms of government.
Further, without going to any other resource beyond reason alone, I can easily make the argument there exist legitimate purposes for government beyond merely the protection of individual rights; in other words, I can argue in favor of the common good, properly understood, over merely “individual rights.” Consider, for example, national defense. National defense is very clearly a collective action of government directed toward the common good, not merely the protection of individual rights. If it were only about individual rights, then the individual could “opt-out,” and if enough individuals chose to do so, national defense would break down. Instead, national defense is a legitimate example of the concept of the “common good” as something going beyond simply individual rights; in this case, a legitimate action of just government to “provide for the common defense and general welfare.” In fact, when it comes to national defense, the government can (and has) legitimately overrode individual rights in favor of providing for “the common defense and general welfare.” By its very name, the true “common defense and general welfare” infringes on “individual rights” in order to provide for each individual his maximum liberty and freedom. Yet, the libertarian would cry “foul” to any perceived infringement on “individual rights.”
Thus, while libertarianism, like other forms of populism, appears attractive on the surface, we must remember all that glitters is not gold. A deeper look at libertarianism reveals its roots in Rousseau’s misunderstanding of human nature. As such, we find libertarianism promoting the individual and his “individual rights” as the highest good, thereby producing a view of all government as itself always inherently evil. Based on its promotion of these false notions regarding human nature and man’s relationship with God, libertarianism is simply not a philosophy which can, or should, be embraced by conservatives or Christians.
[1] Michael P. Farris, Constitutional Law for Enlightened Citizens (Purcellville, VA: Home School Legal Defense Association, 2006), 5-7.
The Blaze News
Semper Alacer 
Why Not Libertarianism?
Image: Wikimedia Commons
It seems at some point in their journey many conservatives follow the sirens’ song into at least a brief flirtatious fling with libertarianism. Some wake up to the reality of libertarianism and return home; others do not. As someone who more than casually flirted with libertarianism, this is a topic I’ve spent some time contemplating. While, like many forms of populism, it looks appealing on the surface, the more deeply I considered libertarianism, the more I came to reject it. Here are my thoughts on why, as both a conservative and a Christian, I cannot accept libertarianism.
Libertarianism begins with a rather Rousseauean “social contract” view that all government is somehow inherently evil, and therefore something to, at best, only be tolerated. All libertarian writings of which I am aware echo this notion of government as at best a “necessary evil.” Libertarians consistently describe government as “use of force” against the individual. This blog post sums up quite well the thought consistently expressed by prominent libertarian thinkers like Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods.
This view of government as a “necessary evil” stands in stark contrast to the authentic conservative and authentic Christian views of government. Instead of being something “imposed” on man by other men as part of some sort of “social contract,” the classical Thomistic and Kirkian view understands that man is social by nature and therefore sees just government as an inherent good ordained by God. Man, by his very God-given nature, seeks not only the company of others, but order as well. This is why man naturally forms families, from which society develops. Such collections of people, again by their very nature, demand order. Providing a framework for order, in other words promoting the “common good,” is the true purpose of just government.
Therefore, we may conclude, in deference to the libertarian position, just government is both good and necessary. Problems do not inherently arise from government itself. Instead, problems arise from unjust and irresponsible governments. On this point alone, conservatives should reject libertarianism. Yet, as we look closer at libertarianism, we uncover even more concerns.
As to my specific arguments against libertarianism, first, one cannot simply pick and choose what a philosophy means. The choice of adopting a particular philosophy involves accepting the entire framework of that philosophy. If we pick and choose from among various beliefs, then we have in fact created something new, no matter how loudly we might claim otherwise. While I radically oppose the ideas of someone like Nietzsche, for example, I can at least respect his intellectual honesty in taking his ideas to their logical conclusions; of course as a result of his radical ideas about the supremacy of the individual alone, we mustn’t forget he died broke, alone, and insane.
Thus, when it comes to libertarianism (as a philosophy, not merely a political party), it rests on the foundation that man alone is the highest good. We find such a notion inherent in the libertarian claim, “The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government.” For the libertarian, the individual is the most important. Yet, this is false. Man is not the highest good. God alone is the highest good. Libertarianism makes the same mistake as every other tyranny by placing man under man – and like every other tyranny, refuses to acknowledge its fundamental mistake.
Additionally, if individual rights are all that matters, a fundamental question comes immediately to mind. Namely, where does my right to do as I please end and your right to do as you please begin? I suspect the answer would be when my actions (engaged in through my “rights”) begin to “infringe” on your “rights.” Yet, how do we clearly define “infringement?” If we say it’s merely by convention, then by the philosophy of libertarianism itself, this is an arbitrary infringement on my rights – and therefore should not bind me. If we say there is an objective standard, then the entire basis of libertarianism (the individual’s rights are the highest order) collapses, for if objective standards (i.e. the “common good”) exist, it is not simply about “individual rights.”
Another example of libertarianism placing man at the pinnacle comes from the Libertarian Party website, “Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property.” In other words, each individual is his own god. I can do what I want, when I want; and you can do what you want, when you want. As an aside, this is why a certain candidate for president thinks it fine for a theocratic orthodox Islamic state to obtain nuclear weapons despite the fact their leadership has made clear their intentions for those weapons (as the Party website proclaims: “Live and let live is the Libertarian way”) – since each individual is his own god, no one has any claim to objective truth, so why would we have any say over what another chooses to do? We need go no further than this to see such a philosophy inherently degenerates into anarchy.
However, we can go further: we do not have a “right” to do anything we want with our body. Even secular states have understood this fact for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Yet, for Christians, this point becomes even clearer. As children of God, created in His image and likeness, our bodies do not belong to us alone, but rightly to the One who created them. His Law makes clear there are indeed limitations on our actions and the use of the bodies He granted us. If I borrow your car, may I do with it anything I please, including willfully or irresponsibly destroying it? Certainly not! Yet, we believe the exact opposite is true with the greatest gift in the universe: the bodies given us by a loving God. Therefore, the Christian must immediately reject the notion that, “Each individual has the right to control his or her own body…” There are limitations on our choices and actions; yet these are not imposed on us from other men, but flow from dictates of the Divine law.
Second, I believe the Founding Fathers would vehemently disagree with the notion, “The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government.” I believe they made very clear and repeated arguments that the only proper purpose of government is the representation of those it governs. The American War for Independence was not fought over taxation; it was fought over representation.[1] Even totalitarian regimes claim they exist only to protect the individual. In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels argue that communism provides far greater protection for the individual than does capitalism because it frees the masses from the clutches of the “oppressors.” It is protection of representation for the governed, not merely “rights” which differentiates a representative Republic such as ours from other forms of government.
Further, without going to any other resource beyond reason alone, I can easily make the argument there exist legitimate purposes for government beyond merely the protection of individual rights; in other words, I can argue in favor of the common good, properly understood, over merely “individual rights.” Consider, for example, national defense. National defense is very clearly a collective action of government directed toward the common good, not merely the protection of individual rights. If it were only about individual rights, then the individual could “opt-out,” and if enough individuals chose to do so, national defense would break down. Instead, national defense is a legitimate example of the concept of the “common good” as something going beyond simply individual rights; in this case, a legitimate action of just government to “provide for the common defense and general welfare.” In fact, when it comes to national defense, the government can (and has) legitimately overrode individual rights in favor of providing for “the common defense and general welfare.” By its very name, the true “common defense and general welfare” infringes on “individual rights” in order to provide for each individual his maximum liberty and freedom. Yet, the libertarian would cry “foul” to any perceived infringement on “individual rights.”
Thus, while libertarianism, like other forms of populism, appears attractive on the surface, we must remember all that glitters is not gold. A deeper look at libertarianism reveals its roots in Rousseau’s misunderstanding of human nature. As such, we find libertarianism promoting the individual and his “individual rights” as the highest good, thereby producing a view of all government as itself always inherently evil. Based on its promotion of these false notions regarding human nature and man’s relationship with God, libertarianism is simply not a philosophy which can, or should, be embraced by conservatives or Christians.
[1] Michael P. Farris, Constitutional Law for Enlightened Citizens (Purcellville, VA: Home School Legal Defense Association, 2006), 5-7.