A partial description of a creature who understands and believes in the core concepts of libertarian philosophy, but who also realizes that America was the closest the world has yet come to these ideals, and who judges this experiment cannot be allowed to fail either by defeat, by treachery or by slow attrition. by Ken D. Berry, MD
(libertarian)
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The title Constitutional-libertarian should not bring to mind a new splinter group of libertarian thought, but rather an umbrella with room for many; from the conservative who happens to also believe in absolute freedom of speech, to the liberal who just happens to believe in smaller government.
It is the smallest of compromises for the pure libertarian, but it allows room for thousands who are not (yet) quite so dedicated to liberty in its absolute form(s). I respectfully submit that pure libertarianism does not yet sound at all attractive to the average man on the street because its precepts are so foreign to his present paradigm. While it is true that lengthy debates and diligent study, I believe, would bring most around to the libertarian view, it must finally be admitted by libertarians that most people don't like lengthy debates or the diligent study of philosophy, economics, governance, or anything else.
Now one can almost sense the strictest of libertarians beginning to grumble, but hear me out. In order to actually change the course of our federal government, we must eventually have a voice that can be heard by more than just the choir; in order to start to set things aright, Libertarians must develop a voice that is palatable, and eventually be elected to office. And, no matter how hard you blog and believe, polling 6% will NEVER get your candidate elected. I am surely not advocating selling out or giving in, just of putting our best foot forward. By becoming a party with a platform that doesn't scare 90% of the electorate away after reading the first 10 words, we increase our ability to change the shape of American politics for the better; God-forbid we actually win an election or two...
Believe it or not, the clothes you wear to a job interview actually matter, and the quality of your grammar matters, and the packaging of your ideas and philosophy matter. There was a time in my young, idealistic, libertarian youth when I would have ruffled at such thoughts, but now as a more mature business owner, I know these things to be facts of life. Leading off with ideas such as the dissolution of all borders and the legalization of certain substances and the immediate closing of all government offices does not sound good to the average American, it sounds kooky, even scary. The speaker of such is immediately demoted to the category of fanatic, and the debate moves on without him. However, leading with lower taxes, less government control and more freedom is much less abrasive and confrontational, and more likely to win minds and votes. If after reading more about their newly discovered love of liberty, these neophytes move (as I think they will) towards a more pure version of liberty, then that is OK too.
The title of Constitutional-libertarian can be looked upon as a promise to the average American that I am not some screw-ball who intends to turn America into a borderless, lawless, substance-enhanced orgy. Pure libertarians do not seem to understand this, but that is how the party is currently viewed by many who have gotten the wrong impression after speaking with some or reading a website by some, that is if they have even heard of the libertarian party.
Can we all agree that if the political and economic measures of our countries happiness and success were pictured as a number-line, any move towards Liberty would tend to increase both happiness and wealth? Similarly, any move towards Statism must lead to more unhappiness and decreased prosperity. Thus, any move towards liberty should be viewed as a success, however small, and a whet of The People's desire for even more liberty.
I know for some, compromise is a dirty word, but there were quite a few wise men in Philadelphia a couple of centuries back who realized that compromise was the way to start, the way towards the light, the way to begin this great experiment that has been the envy of the whole world. For hidden in some of their compromises was the seed of future freedom for millions. So, if you decide to lump me into this group of learned, well-read "sell-outs", I will take the compliment, for perhaps the word compromise has, when studied, a much deeper meaning and more subtle power than the mere sell-out. Do not doubt there were founders and ratifiers who would have banned slavery from the outset, but to utter such things in public during their time would have been considered kooky, or even scary. But, the seeds of freedom they were able to plant in the founding documents were the beginning of freedom for entire races of Americans; had it not been for their measured compromise on language and moderation of obvious intention, liberty might have been many more decades in coming to those in bondage.
There is no doubt that government is and always will be less efficient than the market in providing services, and will be susceptible to abuses of power as would be expected according to the laws of human nature. Any man given power over another will abuse that power; however slight the abuse may seem to him, his servant will feel nothing but the whip. The large majority of the people, if the matter is properly framed, currently believe that government is better suited at providing for such matters as defense and infrastructure; and, strict adherence to the constitution prevents such a government from metastasizing. Of course the market can provide virtually every service more efficiently than any other method, but we must move the people slowly back to these forgotten ideals by using gentle wisdom and diplomacy, and calm persuasion. No matter how right our cause, sophomorically clubbing people over the head with liberty has not and will not ever work.
During the Bush years, the Republican leadership has utterly succumbed to the temptations of empire, and has revealed itself as a political prostitute without a care for the Oath. The Democratic Party leadership will, during the Obama years, reveal its love affair with Fabian socialism, leaving millions of liberals disenchanted and looking for a different answer. This irrefutable failure of both ideologies will leave a huge leadership vacuum which, if libertarians are willing and able, can be filled with a well-presented, well-spoken constitutional-Libertarian party message that appeals to the disgruntled and disappointed from both (formerly) major parties. Former democrats will love our guarantee of personal freedoms and human rights, and reformed Republicans will prosper within our truly free markets free from a withering I.R.S.
This idea if properly framed, widely disseminated and vigorously pursued has the potential to change the face of American government over the next twelve years. The people of the world and The People of America are ripe for this movement back to the American ideal of Liberty; they are starving for a rebirth of the true American Dream. Democrats want personal freedom from government prying, and Republicans want freedom from business regulation; let us give them both, and teach them about Liberty along the way.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 128
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Ken D. Berry, MD only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Ken D. Berry, MD is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Mary-Anne Wolf
Date: 2009-01-22 08:30:51
While I agree that winning elections is better than not winning, I must point out that Libertarians do win, at a local level. I am one of the elected Libertarians.
I agree that scaring away potential supporters makes one less likely to win, and that being selective, or flexible about what one runs on can make them less likely to be scared.
However, I would appreciate an explanation of how what you propose here can be distinguished either
a) from being taken over by Republicans (or Democrats), whose behavior suggests a goal to remove the LP as an effective competitor against their original party, or
b) from adopting positions which are indistinguishable from Republicans (or Democrats) so that voters have no reason to support us. I mean, Republicans and Democrats are not going to SAY that they are against the Constitution.
Very well articulated, Mr. Berry. If the LP cannot figure out how to properly sell their image to themselves, how do they expect to market themselves to the American people? But in this day and age, how you present yourself is 50% of the equation.
You can still push for controversial limits of governmental power if you know how to correctly word it. This is not selling out. This is speaking safely. It's not politically correct either. It's learning how to hone your message to crystal clarity.
Without a full-penetrance belief in the Liberty of Man anchored firmly to the bedrock of the Constitution, our America will slide deeper into the slimy embrace of socialism. Take note, even if you, or a loved one, are a current benefactor of the state, both great and small alike are eventually ground under the tracks of the socialist state; it is inevitable...
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-15 10:43:39
Reality #1 that Libertarians need to get through their thick skulls: Liberty is not open-ended When you talk about "pure" or "absolute" liberty, you are talking about anarchy; and you aren't even talking about real anarchy. You're talking about some pollyanna-ish anarchy where the grim realities of life and social interaction are replaced by cartoon quality wildlife - as if the world were no more dangerous than the "Twitterpated" interlude from Bambi.
If you wish to gaze into your mighty navels and cogitate upon "absolute liberty" then please do so in a PoliSci class where the only folks you'll annoy are the classic liberal/conservative false dichotomy who wish to abscond with everyones' rights because they - and only they - know how to handle the matter perfectly. Don't annoy the public.
Reality #2 for libertarians to wrap their noggins around: Liberty only exists because we have claimed it AND DEFINED IT Which means that liberty is, by definition, limited. It is limited to what we defined it to be in the same document that defines and limits the scope of the government we rely on to defend that very liberty for us.
What this means in practical terms is that "libertarianism" itself is tied directly and inexoribly to those same definitions. Feel-good add-ons such as "only defensive wars", and "no violence" oaths - while snuggy-cumfy - have nothing to do with the the definitions of liberty or the definitions of the government built to protect it, and need to be chucked overboard.
...along with the tired and insupportable "absolute liberty" nonsense. Jettison that non-starter.
While "defensive wars only" may be a practical and wise foreign policy response to certain international events, only the fool imposes absolutist policy before knowing the facts.
And while "no violence" probably makes you well-received in certain social circles, the clear and undebatable reality is that our liberty was claimed and defined for us by those who used violence - and used it first.
Reality #3 - for libertarians and liberals to finally grasp: Constitutional liberties were created by We The People... FOR We The People Our civil rights do not extend beyond our borders - the ACLU thinks they're doing such teak-jerkingly wonderful things by supplanting the Intnational Law 'rules of war' with habeas corpus and public trial by jury ... they're not. They are telling the rest of the world that US civil law is better than anything they've got - "The US rocks!!" - and while this serves to embarrass current US foreign policy, the sentiment it represents - that the US is better than everyone else - is exactly why we're being subjected to this paramilitarist 'war' of attrition in the first place.
Libertarians love the notion of 'open borders'. Open borders is what killed Western Rome, almost directly, and it was indirectly complicit in the downfall of Roman Byzantium. A government which cannot sustain itself in the face of growing opposition or service requests is a government that is going to fail. A failed government cannot enforce liberties.
The US Constitution belongs to us, the US, to Americans. Not to the world at large. If they want one, they need to get their own. Use ours as a blueprint, if they like; hell, plagiarize the damned thing, run it through a copier. But get your own. And more power to you.
When you get your own, enforce it in your own country. And stay in your own country to enjoy it. Come visit us here if you like; we'd like to come visit you. But borders exists to separate what's ours from what's yours, and one of the things that's ours is the freedom to be here without permission.
Which is to say: WE can be here without permission, YOU cannot. Because our Constitutional liberties apply to us, not you. If you are here - with permission - and generally behaving yourself, we will very, very likely - as a courtesy - extend your our civil liberties just because we're nice. But please remember that if you are here withOUT permission, or grotesquely misbehaving, we reserve the right to treat you exactly as we wish - because our civil liberties apply to us, not you.
Reality #4 for everyone to accept, including the liberal and conservative nitwits: The Constitution says what it says, it does not say the endless 'interpretations' that have been attributed to it; enforce it as written. "Interpretation" is a cumulative process. It's like layers of dust that accumulate on the dining room table. Given enough time, the dining room table is completely covered and you can't tell what detailed woodworking went into it. Was it, at one time beautiful? Maybe, maybe not. Can't tell.
But willful inattention is not a substitute for Constitutional Law.
"Interpretation" creates the same cumulative nonsense that the child's game of "telephone" gives. Line up a class full of thirty first graders around the room. Teacher whispers a message into the ear of the first child, who whispers it to the next, who whispers it to the next, and on around the room, until it gets back to the teacher who writes the final message on the blackboard.
Then the teacher writes the original message on the blackboard above it, and the whole room giggles with glee at how starting with one message got to a completely different message at the end, and kids chime in with what they heard in between. What fun!
But ignorant equivocation is not an adequate form for ConLaw to take.
"Interpretation" is cumulative when principles are stretched out of shape for well-meant exigencies and even emergencies. 2+2=4. But here we have a guy with two dollars in his left pocket and two in his right, who wants to buy something that's $3.99. After tax, that comes to $4.23. And, well, we feel sorry for the guy, so just this once 2+2=4.23.
We build on that "precedent" by next declaring that a guy with holes in two pockets and who hasn't held a job in two years can apply for - and get - a 5 year signature loan for a car. ...cuz we really need the business. 2+2 now = 5.
And building on that "precedent" ...
PRECEDENT, n. In Law, a previous decision, rule or practice which, in the absence of a definite statute, has whatever force and authority a Judge may choose to give it, thereby greatly simplifying his task of doing as he pleases. ... - Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Sorry; no. Deliberate disingenuity, dishonesty or deceipt - even [and especially] for "really swell reasons" - is not proper ConLaw.
Freedom of religion does not imply freedom from religion any more than freedom of speech implies freedom from it. If freedom of implies freedom from, then not only can we stifle religious expression and activity, but we can also silence political dissent.
This is the end result of cumulative "interpretation": yes means no; up means down; black means white; in means out. Because the government wants it that way, and we haven't exercised the initiative to dust the dining room table, and we thought it clever fun to giggle at what the teacher wrote, and we felt sorry for the guy.
That is not a legitimate basis of ConLaw. Enforce the damned thing - as written, and "as written" means, by definition, "for those for whom it WAS written" - and if we decide a certain piece of it no longer serves our purposes, use the approved means of changing it.
But cease "interpreting" it.
Without a full-penetrance belief in the Liberty of Man anchored firmly to the bedrock of the Constitution, our America will slide deeper into the slimy embrace of socialism.
I don't know exactly what is meant by "full penetrance", and while socialism is merely one form of tyranny to which we are capable of falling - which is the real danger - this is essentially the point.
"Liberty" means nothing until it is made tangible in a doctrine, treaty or Constitution. We have done that for ourselves, and so our liberty is defined. It is now meaningful.
"Libertarians" who do not understand this have divorced meaning from liberty, and they are living in some fantasy navel-gazing world, ... where yes means down; up means white; black means out; in means no.
Is it really an issue of compromise or speed by which you push the libertarian agenda? The Constitution of the United States is founded on classical liberal principles and so is the Libertarian Party, so really I almost see Constitutional Libertarian as redundant. Yes, there are libertarians that are more anarchistic and not classical liberals, but most in the US are from a classical liberal perspective. What really is the plan here? To just tone it down a bit? Instead of calling for a total legalization of drugs you call for a “decriminalization of marijuana”? Instead of talking about abolishing the income tax and the IRS, you call for “lower taxes”? Of course, lower taxes and decriminalizing marijuana would be favored by a libertarian, they are not as far as a libertarian would ultimately hope to go. For me, I am not into pushing a party, and consider myself independent, though I am libertarian philosophically Actually I am a left leaning libertarian more in line with mutualist thought. I'm glad to see people like Ron Paul out there promoting libertarian ideas to a mainstream audience. He may never win the oval office, but he is getting a message out. I'm glad his son won the Republican primary in KY yesterday to.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
