Skip to main content

I'm Not A Libertarian

I'm announcing it, in case there was a doubt. Andrew Preslar has given me some things to think about via Ed Feser. I'll keep it basic, because I have a basic brain. Not everything the state does is theft. Indeed, the very notion of constitutionally-limited government presupposes that within those limits is the government's legitimate function. To what end? The common good. And what is that? It is at least the conditions necessary for each person to attain his end, first natural, then supernatural.

I realized what was happening in my thinking over these past years when I thought of the welfare state itself, how it began as a great spasm of compassion for the less fortunate, how its very existence is the measure of self-worth for the progressive. And the great insight, the great truth that emerges from its creation and reflection upon this creation is that the government exists for the people. Yet we are individuals; we are self-aware as individuals; something of those inalienable dignities--that unique dignity--becomes real only in the individual.

One of our great sins in our work of compassion is that we haven't cared whether our great concepts of justice and equality are realized in the individual. It is enough that they are held up as desirable. We dare not even look at those policies in action, these monuments to failure. For too long, they have been nothing more than expressions of our own self-regard. Medicare and Social Security are hailed as great successes, but if we fail to address what is mainly a demographic problem and a problem of misaligned incentives because it is easier to attack those who point out the problem as monsters who hate the weak and needy, we are unworthy of our grand vision. What sort of liberals are we if we allow disaster to happen to spite our political adversaries?

I realize that I'm not the kind of conservative that wants to re-make society. I just want someone to acknowledge reality. As they say, something that can't go on forever, won't. We are not a country without a safety net, nor should we be. But anything that does not serve the cause of self-determination--for those in need, or the rest of us--needs radical reforming or to be discarded.

If we believe there is genius and real innovation in the American people, let them take some part of what the government takes from them in Social Security taxes, (as one example) and see what they can do. We certainly can't do worse. Do we believe in self-determination, or buying votes?

That's what this whole thing is about: self-determination. "Free markets" and "smaller government" are just cheap slogans if we don't subordinate them to our real end, and explain why it matters. Some of us have been drawn to philosophies of radical autonomy because the government is such an overbearing threat to our self-determination. Indeed, it is so omnipresent that its influence is courted and bought by the largest firms in every industry and sector of the American economy. At once it thwarts meaningful economic participation for those at the margins, and distorts and even destroys mutually beneficial economic partnerships already formed. And prevents new partnerships from forming. This is not free enterprise; it is corporatism. And the vile philosophy of socialism feeds off the injustice it creates.

And economic freedom is an expression and a means to achieve holistic self-determination. We must reject everything that is rooted in radical autonomy or collectivism. We have ends greater than ourselves, but neither do they terminate in the State.

Comments

Molly McCann said…
I like the title of this post. :) John Locke, the father of the Libertarian movement, makes pretty clear in his writing that his philosophy does not enable good people to argue good morals. There are no solid first principles on which to stand. Aristotle recognized that man is fundamentally a social creature and that government is the natural (and good) product of that reality. Limited government does not mean government is fundamentally evil. Enjoyed the post!

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...