OK, one post with an odd jab at libertarianism, I could let slide. But two in a row?*

Libertarianism isn't about "indifference." Explicitly or implicitly. A libertarian may very well (and very likely does) share the same moral values you hold dear. He simply does not believe that government is the proper or best tool for expressing them.

That's all it is: a particular view about the role of government.

The weirdest thing about your knocks on libertarianism is that in 95 percent of cases you agree with this view of government's role. Libertarianism and conservatism are "incompatible" only in the other 5 or so percent of cases -- and again, they are incompatible only in respect to their judgments of government's usefulness as a tool.

Libertinism is incompatible with conservatism. Libertarianism is not libertinism.

*(Yes, I'm aware these posts had different authors.)

As a theoretical matter, Libertarianism is not necessarily libertinism, but in practice it's indistinguishable.

As a theoretical matter, conservatives are the upholders of moral rectitude. But in practice conservatives do a lot of immoral things.

Hypocrisy it the tribute that vice pays virtue. No human can be always moral.

My point wasn't about moral rectitude or hypocrisy per se. I was simply pointing out the flaw in your argument about the indistinction between libertarianism and libertinism.

Libertarians, like liberals, think us incapable of judging each others behavior. Conservatives don't.

Libertarians don't think man is incapable of judging others' behavior. (Ayn Rand, for want of a better example at the moment, certainly did plenty of "judging" -- and certainly encouraged others to do so.) Libertarians simply don't think GOVERNMENT is the best mechanism for expressing such judgment.

This isn't difficult to understand, which is why I suspect at this point you're simply being obstinate for the sake of it.

Semolina:

Okay, so we judge pedophilia to be unacceptable. What do we do about it if not enforce our judgement via government?

First, to clarify the framing of your hypothetical: No one of any political persuasion is going to be outlawing "pedophilia" itself, ever. That's impossible.

The hypothetical we'd actually be discussing is one that involves activities such as child molestation, child pornography trafficking, etc. And I know of no libertarian argument that would preclude government enforcement against these activities. You're confusing libertarians with anarchists.

Libertarians believe that defending individuals' rights against initiation of force is an appropriate role of government. Thus there's nothing about libertarianism that would keep government from acting against child molestation and child pornography. Presumably the reason you would outlaw these things is because they can hurt a child. That's the same reason libertarianism would outlaw them.

Really, we have few differences. You and I can hold precisely the same set of moral values yet disagree only about the proper role of government in relation to them. And certainly nothing about that disagreement means you're an adherent of "love" and "generosity" while I am adherent of "indifference."

In fact, I may very well think that government is a threat to love and generosity and an accomplice to indifference. Because when government is extended beyond what I see as its legitimate role, it creates a distance between individuals and personal responsibility by eroding accountability and breeding dependence.

Love and generosity are certainly much more meaningful when they are the result of individual free will, not the product of a facade built at the expense of individual freedom.

If free will exists, then you can always be moral.

You tell 'em, Semolina! The libertarian-bashing around here is especially ironic given all the talk about the new Republican majority. As has been pointed out elsewhere, that's happening partly because of things like Rudy and Arnold speaking at the convention, despite the fact that they disagreed with the abortion plank. Demanding pure ideological conformity is a ticket to minority party status. Republicans would do well to throw libertarians a bone now and then (though not on this issue).

Besides, I think there is a libertarian argument against same-sex marriage, on Hayekian grounds: i.e., just because something is a social institution doesn't mean it can be easily changed without negative side effects.

Semolina:

So, you do believe in government enforcing your morality?

Harry:

Yes, you just haveb to conform to the dictates of He who gave it to you.

"My" morality? I'm not sure what you mean. There's moral, and there's immoral. It's not decided by me.

What's the difference between a small-government conservative and a libertarian?

Spelling.

Semolina;

In the last few weeks, two very intelligent and and articulate libertarians on this site have argued that their right to gamble is absolute and that (I paraphrase) "it doesn't matter if 99% of the population disagrees". What say you?

It's all well and good to take 19th century political philosophy on freedom, but 19th century political philosophers assumed, in their opposition to the state, a degree of religious, community and family cohesion and power that has gone with the wind. Libertarians aren't wrong, they are just in a time warp.

Note to file: "The state is a necessary evil. The state is here."

Jeff:

government

Peter: I think I may have been one of those who argued that a right to gamble is absolute, and that it doesn't matter if 99 percent of the population disagrees. (Whether I was one of the two very intelligent and articulate ones, I'll put myself at the mercy of your judgment...)

Orrin: You say the difference between a small-government conservative and a libertarian is "government." Again, you're conflating libertarians and anarchists. Libertarians certainly want government, which is necessary for protecting individual rights and providing defense of the state. We just want it to be restricted to those jobs.

I really don't understand why you direct so much ill will toward us. We're your allies. Any objection, it seems, would be limited to the point Peter makes above regarding noble but anachronistic intentions. Libertarianism isn't some new-fangled ideology; it's based in the same principles that launched the American idea.

Instead, you continually lump libertarianism in with leftism, which isn't just insulting but is completely, utterly inaccurate.

Semolina:

It's just as extreme as statism. The Founders believed in ordered liberty, not freedom.

Orrin wants his party to be able to force everybody else to behave the way they pretend to behave, therefore he cannot abide libertarians.

Abide them? They're nearly as amusing as Darwinists.

Well, I've done my best here, for a Sunday afternoon/evening, at any rate. Glad to know my earnest arguments, presented in a spirit of good-faith debate, were a source of amusement for you.

Semolina:

It's pretty well plowed ground around here:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1298/

Semolina:

You held up your end very well. Unfortunately, you are arguing against someone whose dedication to freedom has a distinctly tyrannical whiff about it.

That kind of overreach will put paid to the authoritarian religious conservatives and swing the pendulum back to the left.

We'd all be better off if the outliers on both sides were far more concerned about living their own lives, and far less concerned about living everyone elses.

The opposite of love is not hate but indifference.

Congratulations, you just emptied another word of all meaning.

If you were held in a POW camp, would you rather suffer the opposite of kindness (torture) or suffer the indiffernce to kindness? I know which one I would choose. The argument you make is relative, something you loathe.

Ultimately from a practical perspective, the choice between libertarian ideals (not talking third party) and big government conservatism comes down to whether or not as a society we can design, build, and maintain, generation after generation, a perfectly operating government state aparatus. One that does not change or corrupt the people as liberalism has, or brutalize and exploit the people as socialism has. Tall order for 20 million evanglicals OJ.

The best government (for the long haul) is one that is tied closely to individual self interest and not collective self interest. I beleive this is the best way to optimize collective self interest in an imperfect world.

Semolina is right OJ, you have sidestepped the argument that we libertarians believe basically the same thing you do but feel people should do for themselves instead of asking the government to do and this includes morality issues. Your indiffernce argument doesnt make up the gap. Also, we are not Anarchists, so that doesn't apply either.

Jeff:
Jeff:

Your earlier post is well stated. Perhaps a key question for all of us in the new majority (the real reality based community) to ponder is "how do we as citizens balance the rights of the individual with the need to have some regulation of those rights for the common good?" We also need to work toward a clearer understanding of words like "justice," "personal responsibility," "accountability," among others.

Let's find out how broad and compatable we can be and how we can bring out the best in our society together. We've got to be able to do better that the other side...I hope and pray we can.

OJ:

I've long thought about Wiesel's comment about indifference and I don't buy it. I see indifference as "an enemy," along greed, envy, lust, glutony, avarice, etc. These are behaviors/vices/choices (however you wish to describe them). These are the greatest dangers to (but not the opposites of) love, life, peace, culture, beauty, and generocity.

Perry/Dave W:

The Nazis, by their very elevation of the Jews into a world-historical threat and by their determination to exterminate them rather than see them win the struggle treated them, in an admittedly bizarre way, with more respect than we did, who ignored them.

Perry:

The people have already decided they won't accept a small government. Libertarianism is based on the premise that the 50% who prefer security to freedom can be denied,. That's false.

My father didn't join up before Pearl Harbor out of indifference, Orrin.

You can nurture your fantasies about FDR, but they're still fantasies.

I haven't paid much attention to Wiesel's little notion, but here's a story about love and hate and indifference I ran across since this post started.

I get it 4th hand: In one of the prisons for civilian Dutch prisoners somewhere in the East Indies, food was short and medical care scarce. Many were dying.

One of the inmates treated a small, dehydrated boy who cried for an orange. The prisoners didn't get oranges, and the boy died.

The woman followed his coffin to the camp cemetery, something she hadn't done before, and was outraged to see that, following Buddhist practice, a plate of oranges was placed over the grave.

She stormed into the commandant's office (potentially a shooting offense) and told him off. The next day, a truckload of oranges was delivered to the camp.

So, now, define indifference for me. And hate. And love.

I think all of you are wrong.

Harry:

Your father didn't join up to save the Jews either.

We should have treated Blacks with indifference rather than with a supposed helping hand. Had we been indifferent, Al Sharpton would not exist and a lot of people would be better off past and present.

I spend about .000...0001% of my time thinking about how someone's Jewishness affects me. In fact, I am indiffernt to Jews. To my knowledge, this does not have any Jews upset nor do I feel any of them think I have hurt them in any way because of my indiffernce. My guess is they like it that way. (me not thinking of their Jewishness).

OJ, exactly how big and intrusive would you like the government to get?

Perry:

It'll be enormous--diverting some considerable portion of your money to accounts that will perovide for your own welfare--but relatively un-intrusive beyond the mandate.

"The Nazis, by their very elevation of the Jews ..."

Ummm... Was this meant for another thread? Because it sure comes off here like a non sequitur. Could someone please explain why it was abruptly injected into this discussion -- in particular, its pertinence as a response to "Perry/Dave W"?

====

"The people have already decided they won't accept a small government. Libertarianism is based on the premise that the 50% who prefer security to freedom can be denied. That's false."

Actually that's not the premise on which libertarianism is based. Nevertheless, if we're assessing the comparative values of freedom and security based on what some portion of the populace "prefers," then it's clear that democracy has now officially triumphed over liberty. So much for the American experiment.

====

"It'll be enormous--diverting some considerable portion of your money to accounts that will provide for your own welfare ... "

Not sure if this was intended to be satire. (Sure hope so.) If not, well ...

... eek.

Semolina:

You're getting there. Democracy is incompatible with freedom and therefore libertarianism is impossible. It's as utopian as Marxism.

Democracy utopian?

That's a laugh. Marxim made all kinds of utopian promises; last I heard democracy has done no such thing.

Never mind democracy has been far friendlier to freedom than anything else yet tried.

Especially overweening theocrats decrying the statism without even the slightest understanding of irony.

I think Orrin is saying that libertarianism is utopian. (Not that democracy is.)

But he's also saying that democracy is incompatible with freedom. That's not necessarily true. Short of a dictatorship that gives its people total freedom, democracy is indeed the best guarantor of liberty.

But for that to happen, it requires constant vigilance. The founders recognized this, and so created a constitutional representative republic, which put a buffer of protection between democracy and liberty. This would thwart any dangers to liberty posed by fleeting whims of the populace.

Or so the theory went. Of course, two centuries of putting lawmakers into office means you eventually wind up with a whole lot of lawmaking. And after a while, it's hard to see past that big mass of laws and remember where we'd started. At that point, then, it's just a matter of WHOSE laws get made -- those of the leftists, or those of the Orrin Judds. It becomes a game based on politics, not on original principles.

Libertarians are simply saying: "Hey, don't forget about those original principles! Neither the leftists NOR the Orrin Judds are supposed to be voting away freedoms!"

Semolina:

Brilliantly said--full points.

Democracy is incompatible with freedom.

How many think we live in a democracy? I get the strangest looks when I explain that we live in a constitutional republic not a true democracy.

Semolina-- excellent post above! What is your position on local zoning ordinances?

Original principles of any human institution will always be refined by time. This reality is both life-giving and life-threatening institution, but it's reality!

I will add one more question (to my post above on this thread) for all of us to ponder, "What do the original principles upon which our constitutional republic was founded (1789)say to us today (2004/05) and how can we live them out in the world in which we live?"

In fact, Orrin, he did.

Harry:

Sure. And joined the Navy?