|
A Libertarian Quarrel
|
Terry L Parker
|
Feb 18, 2004 20:56 PST
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F672.6D740310
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_000E_01C3F672.6D740310"
------=_NextPart_001_000E_01C3F672.6D740310
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Libertarianism (reciprocal physical comprehensive autonomy for each person) starts with this premise
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/9386
ArticaleAt http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_libertarian&Number=1295125#Post1295125
Published: February 16, 2004 Author: by Tibor R. Machan
For Education and Discussion Only. Not for Commercial Use.
A Libertarian Quarrel
by Tibor R. Machan
February 16, 2004
Within the USA, there has always been a relatively strong libertarian voice, in contrast to most other countries. And within the libertarian movement, two strands have quarreled in a civil but not altogether gentle tone.
I have in mind the argument between those who believe in limited government-usually called minarchists-versus those who want no government at all-called anarchists. (This last, however, does not, akin to classical anarchists, reject all laws and their enforcement.)
Before discussing these two positions, it will help to place libertarianism in perspective. Throughout human intellectual history, there have always been a few voices raised against statism, the belief that in human communities sovereignty rests with the government. This is embraced in monarchy, socialism, fascism, communism, and theocracies. Government is seen either as God-on-earth or the-will-of-the-people (as a whole). In all these statist outlooks, the individual members of society are taken to be subservient, lowly beings, or simply cells in the body of the society, which is the locus of value.
Now and then, statist views have been challenged, but since power has been concentrated in the state, they rarely got sufficient airing. When government owns the presses, forums of discussion such as universities, or parks where speeches may be given, it is no wonder those who support one or another version of the powerful state stand in the limelight, with the few opposite voices basically marginalized if not killed off outright.
After a while, though, governments proved to be so corrupt, so unruly, and so capricious that too many folks began to see it as a threat and the ruse that it is. The lie that it's God's representative on earth or it expresses the will of the people just could not be made believable enough to suppress all the opposition. The power of monarchs-tsars, pharaohs, and such-began to be questioned and in time contained. The idea that royals aren't anything special, after all-that all the self-important ministers and their favored nobility were just pretending to be endowed with special rights (divine rights, it used to be called)-began to catch on.
Eventually, certain thinkers who studied these heretical thoughts developed solid arguments and got published somehow, and the notion of the sovereignty of human individuals, as opposed to states, became palatable enough to inspire influential and clever people to translate them into law and public policy. The American Founders were the most successful of these people, managing to declare to the world that it is individual human beings who have unalienable rights to their lives, to their liberties and to the pursuit of their happiness. However much or little they succeeded in curtailing the powers of the state, the idea that this may well be a good idea could no longer be kept out of circulation.
Unfortunately, bad habits are difficult to shed, so the actual legal order they forged didn't fully recognize and protect unalienable individual human rights. And many elements of the old system were kept intact, such as taxation, conscription, secondary citizenship for various groups, and even slavery. But the cat was out of the bag, intellectually--as Abe Lincoln somewhat duplicitously put it, "No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."
The result was the eventual development of the libertarian alternative to all varieties of statism. This development, however, didn't resolve one of the questions that has always been on the minds of political thinkers, namely, whether government of any type is evil, a criminal organization disguised as something necessary for society, or the germ of legitimacy to the institution, only it has been twisted by power hungry rulers and their apologists to serve corrupt ends.
Libertarians, unlike old line anarchist, recognize the value of law and even law enforcement. What some of them argued is that any law enforcement agency must itself be deprived of its monopoly status, be competitive, so it is subject to a repeated cleansing process. Just like other things people want or need, law, too, must be possible to be offered by many agents who can provide it.
Those libertarians who think government has merit, provided it is kept within proper bounds, disagree with this, but only to a relatively minor degree. They think that in some ways law enforcement will always be monopolistic, but not different from, say, how an apartment house or department store is monopolistic-namely, only one can exist in one geographical spot. If you want to get to a competing agency, you need to move there.
Most libertarians do not see this as a deal-breaking dispute. They are mainly concerned with the central point: Who is to rule our lives? Is it to be individuals, within their own delimited sphere, wherein no one may enter who hasn't obtained permission, where no governing may occur unless consent of the governed has been given? Or is it to be some self-selected persons or groups, people who either rule others on their own initiative or who claim to speak for everyone and impose their (majority, minority) plans on all, never mind consent.
The libertarian alternative is still marginalized. This is perhaps analogous to how the idea of equal standing under the law for women is marginalized across the globe. Both of these ideas, of course, deserve a serious hearing and, as best as I can tell, ultimate success.
-end of article-
Live&LetLive Audio Title
George Carlin's profane little 15 sec explanation
http://txliberty.dyndns.org/Inetpub/wwwroot/Webfiles/letlive.ram
Liberty InterNet TV available free for playback and/or download
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/links
We must be FOR a brave, consistent & inclusive
love of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
as it triumphs over the tyranny of fear!
-Terry Liberty Parker
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
In Austin Texas every Sunday 6:30pm to ?
I host informal discussion to which all are welcome
who want to consider ideas & issues of political liberty
in Hickory St Grill at 8th St & Congress Ave
MyPicAt http://profiles.yahoo.com/txliberty
http://www.publicconversations.org/
------=_NextPart_001_000E_01C3F672.6D740310
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#000080><EM><STRONG>Libertarianism</STRONG> (r</EM>eciprocal physical
comprehensive autonomy for each person) starts with this premise
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#000080>at</FONT> <A
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/9386"
target=_blank><FONT
color=#0000ff>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/9386</FONT></A> </FONT><BR></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>ArticaleAt</FONT> <A
href="http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&;Board=news_libertarian&Number=1295125#Post1295125">http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_libertarian&Number=1295125#Post1295125</A><FONT
face=Arial> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial> </FONT>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD> </TD>
<TD vAlign=top><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif"
size=-1><B>Published:</B> February 16, 2004 <B>Author:</B> by
Tibor R. Machan</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD> </TD>
<TD vAlign=top><B>For Education and Discussion Only. Not for
Commercial Use.</B></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT><FONT
face=Arial></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT><BR><!-- -->A Libertarian Quarrel
<BR><BR>by Tibor R. Machan <BR><BR>February 16, 2004 <BR><BR>Within the USA,
there has always been a relatively strong libertarian voice, in contrast to most
other countries. And within the libertarian movement, two strands have quarreled
in a civil but not altogether gentle tone. <BR><BR>I have in mind the argument
between those who believe in limited government-usually called
minarchists-versus those who want no government at all-called
anarchists. (This last, however, does not, akin to classical anarchists, reject
all laws and their enforcement.) <BR><BR>Before discussing these two positions,
it will help to place libertarianism in perspective. Throughout human
intellectual history, there have always been a few voices raised against
statism, the belief that in human communities sovereignty rests with the
government. This is embraced in monarchy, socialism, fascism, communism, and
theocracies. Government is seen either as God-on-earth or the-will-of-the-people
(as a whole). In all these statist outlooks, the individual members of society
are taken to be subservient, lowly beings, or simply cells in the body of the
society, which is the locus of value. <BR><BR>Now and then, statist views have
been challenged, but since power has been concentrated in the state, they rarely
got sufficient airing. When government owns the presses, forums of discussion
such as universities, or parks where speeches may be given, it is no wonder
those who support one or another version of the powerful state stand in the
limelight, with the few opposite voices basically marginalized if not killed off
outright. <BR><BR>After a while, though, governments proved to be so corrupt, so
unruly, and so capricious that too many folks began to see it as a threat and
the ruse that it is. The lie that it’s God’s representative on earth or it
expresses the will of the people just could not be made believable enough to
suppress all the opposition. The power of monarchs-tsars, pharaohs, and
such-began to be questioned and in time contained. The idea that royals
aren’t anything special, after all-that all the self-important ministers
and their favored nobility were just pretending to be endowed with special
rights (divine rights, it used to be called)-began to catch on.
<BR><BR>Eventually, certain thinkers who studied these heretical thoughts
developed solid arguments and got published somehow, and the notion of the
sovereignty of human individuals, as opposed to states, became palatable enough
to inspire influential and clever people to translate them into law and public
policy. The American Founders were the most successful of these people, managing
to declare to the world that it is individual human beings who have unalienable
rights to their lives, to their liberties and to the pursuit of their happiness.
However much or little they succeeded in curtailing the powers of the state, the
idea that this may well be a good idea could no longer be kept out of
circulation. <BR><BR>Unfortunately, bad habits are difficult to shed, so the
actual legal order they forged didn’t fully recognize and protect unalienable
individual human rights. And many elements of the old system were kept intact,
such as taxation, conscription, secondary citizenship for various groups, and
even slavery. But the cat was out of the bag, intellectually--as Abe Lincoln
somewhat duplicitously put it, “No man is good enough to govern another man
without that other's consent.” <BR><BR>The result was the eventual development
of the libertarian alternative to all varieties of statism. This development,
however, didn’t resolve one of the questions that has always been on the minds
of political thinkers, namely, whether government of any type is evil, a
criminal organization disguised as something necessary for society, or the germ
of legitimacy to the institution, only it has been twisted by power hungry
rulers and their apologists to serve corrupt ends. <BR><BR>Libertarians, unlike
old line anarchist, recognize the value of law and even law enforcement. What
some of them argued is that any law enforcement agency must itself be deprived
of its monopoly status, be competitive, so it is subject to a repeated cleansing
process. Just like other things people want or need, law, too, must be possible
to be offered by many agents who can provide it. <BR><BR>Those libertarians who
think government has merit, provided it is kept within proper bounds, disagree
with this, but only to a relatively minor degree. They think that in some ways
law enforcement will always be monopolistic, but not different from, say, how an
apartment house or department store is monopolistic-namely, only one can
exist in one geographical spot. If you want to get to a competing agency, you
need to move there. <BR><BR>Most libertarians do not see this as a deal-breaking
dispute. They are mainly concerned with the central point: Who is to rule our
lives? Is it to be individuals, within their own delimited sphere, wherein no
one may enter who hasn’t obtained permission, where no governing may occur
unless consent of the governed has been given? Or is it to be some self-selected
persons or groups, people who either rule others on their own initiative or who
claim to speak for everyone and impose their (majority, minority) plans on all,
never mind consent. <BR><BR>The libertarian alternative is still marginalized.
This is perhaps analogous to how the idea of equal standing under the law for
women is marginalized across the globe. Both of these ideas, of course, deserve
a serious hearing and, as best as I can tell, ultimate success. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>-end of article- </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><STRONG>Live&LetLive Audio Title <BR></STRONG>George
Carlin's profane little 15 sec explanation <BR></FONT><A
href="http://txliberty.dyndns.org/Inetpub/wwwroot/Webfiles/letlive.ram"
target=_blank><FONT
face=Arial>http://txliberty.dyndns.org/Inetpub/wwwroot/Webfiles/letliveram</FONT></A>
</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><STRONG>Liberty InterNet TV</STRONG> </FONT><FONT
face=Arial>available free for playback and/or download </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>at <A
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/links" target=_blank><FONT
color=#0000ff>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/links</FONT></A> </FONT></DIV></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#800000><EM>We must </EM></FONT><FONT
face=Arial color=#800000><EM>be FOR a brave, consistent &
inclusive </EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#800000><EM>love </EM></FONT><FONT face=Arial
color=#800000><EM>of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#800000><EM><FONT face=Arial>as it triumphs over the tyranny
of fear!</FONT></EM></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#800000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT face=Script color=#800000 size=4><EM><STRONG>-Terry
Liberty Parker</STRONG></EM></FONT> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><A href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/"
target=_blank><FONT
color=#000080>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/</FONT></A><EM><FONT
color=#000080> </FONT></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT face=Arial color=#000080></FONT></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT face=Arial color=#000080>In Austin Texas every Sunday 6:30pm to ?
</FONT></EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT face=Arial color=#000080>I host informal discussion to which all
are welcome </FONT></EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT face=Arial color=#000080>who want to consider ideas & issues
of political liberty </FONT></EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT face=Arial color=#000080>in Hickory St Grill at 8th St &
Congress Ave </FONT></EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#000080>MyPicAt </FONT><A
href="http://profiles.yahoo.com/txliberty" target=_blank><FONT
color=#000080>http://profiles.yahoo.com/txliberty</FONT></A><FONT color=#000080>
</FONT></FONT></EM></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#800000><FONT color=#000000><A
href="http://www.publicconversations.org/" target=_blank><FONT
color=#000080><EM>http://www.publicconversations.org/</EM></FONT></A> </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_001_000E_01C3F672.6D740310--
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F672.6D740310
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
name="A Libertarian Quarrel - Forums powered by Reason and Principle.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="A Libertarian Quarrel - Forums powered by Reason and Principle.url"
[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=3Dhttp://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=3D&Board=3Dnews_li=
bertarian&Number=3D1295125
[InternetShortcut]
URL=3Dhttp://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=3D&Board=3Dnews_libert=
arian&Number=3D1295125#Post1295125
Modified=3DC0484F849EF6C30133
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F672.6D740310--
|
|
 |
|
