As a libertarian who became interested in public policy because of Ronald Reagan, it won’t surprise you to know that I’m more of a “right libertarian” than “left libertarian.”
I fully agree with positions that motivate left libertarians, such as the war on drugs doing more harm than good, foreign entanglements such as NATO no longer serving America’s national security purpose, and the importance of preserving constitutional protections of civil liberties. But since I’m a fiscal policy economist, I normally consort with conservatives.
And my frequent interactions with conservatives sometimes lead me to wonder why we aren’t closer allies. Well, maybe we can be if both sides read what Tim Carney wrote for today’s Washington Examiner.
His column is about Rick Santorum’s inability to unite proponents of limited government, but that’s secondary to the insightful analysis on how conservatives and libertarians can be natural allies. Here are key passages.
For many of today’s liberals, if something is bad — like the traditional light bulb, a very high health-insurance deductible, a gas-guzzling car, or a lack of racial diversity — the government ought to outlaw it. Maybe they can’t comprehend the mind-set of many of today’s conservatives, who revere both individual liberty and traditional morality as the necessary conditions for human happiness and thus say that certain behaviors are immoral but shouldn’t be illegal. Not only are traditional morality and limited government totally compatible, today they are intimately linked, as the Left uses big government to subsidize abortion providers and force all employers to pay for their employees’ contraceptives. …the moral law should guide our personal actions, and individual liberty should guide our political decisions. …When liberals cry that conservatives are trying to legislate morality, that’s typically projection and misdirection from liberal attempts to legislate morality — they say we’re trying to outlaw buying contraception because we oppose their efforts to mandate buying contraception. …More often than not, in the United States these days, it’s the secular Left imposing its morality on the religious Right. Don’t want to photograph a gay wedding? You’re fined. Don’t want to sell the morning-after pill at your pharmacy? You’re driven out of your job. Don’t want to pay for your employees’ sterilization? You’re a criminal. Don’t want to subsidize Planned Parenthood with your tax dollars? Tough, pay up. An alliance between libertarians and conservatives is natural and right today. …The proper conservative response is to fight for the liberty of all Americans, including religious conservatives, to manage their own affairs according to what they believe is correct. Increasing the size of government, even in the name of a more moral society, simply gives the Left more weapons to turn on the Right in the culture war — Obamacare is the perfect example.
Maybe Tim’s column makes sense to me because I’m somewhat of a social conservative in my personal life. I’ve never smoked, never done drugs, don’t like gambling, rarely drink, don’t deal with prostitutes (other than the non-sexual ones serving in government), and have a traditional view on the importance of family. But I’ve never thought my boring personal preferences should be part of the law.
But as Tim explains, leftists believe in imposing their views on everyone else. And the last sentence in the excerpt shows why conservatives and libertarians should be united in opposition to statism. Big government gives the left the tools to advance an agenda that undermines both morality and liberty.
So with that in mind, I’m going to do something similar to Mitchell’s Law and Mitchell’s Golden Rule. But in this case, I’ll actually give credit to someone else. As shown in the picture, libertarians and conservatives should unite behind Carney’s Fusionist Theorem.
[…] And, as a libertarian, I believe people should be free to make their own decisions (consistent with the libertarian non-aggression principle, of course), even if I happen to disapprove. […]
[…] religiously read just about everything from Thomas Sowell, John Stossel, Walter Williams, Tim Carney, and other libertarian-minded […]
[…] don’t like […]
[…] the way, even though I’m a social conservative-style teetotaler, I agree with the pot legalization. But I have mixed feelings because I don’t want […]
[…] the way, even though I’m a social conservative-style teetotaler, I agree with the pot legalization. But I have mixed feelings because I don’t want […]
[…] not just that I’m a teetotaler and want others to make the same choice. Stories like this one from CNN genuinely worry […]
[…] view on the Drug War is somewhat schizophrenic. In my personal life, I’m basically a social conservative. I don’t like drugs, I’ve never tried drugs, and I urge others to behave the same […]
[…] view on the Drug War is somewhat schizophrenic. In my personal life, I’m basically a social conservative. I don’t like drugs, I’ve never tried drugs, and I urge others to behave the same […]
[…] view on the Drug War is somewhat schizophrenic. In my personal life, I’m basically a social conservative. I don’t like drugs, I’ve never tried drugs, and I urge others to behave the same […]
[…] an argument about whether you should use drugs, like drugs, or approve of drug use. You can be the drug equivalent of a teetotaler like me and still realize that it makes no sense for the government to squander lots of money and hurt lots […]
[…] Tim Carney explains that natural alliance much better. […]
[…] Tim Carney explains that natural alliance much better. […]
[…] Tim Carney explains that natural alliance much better. […]
[…] that means more than just holding open doors for women or giving up my seat on a bus. Because of my old-fashioned values, I also believe in helping out when there’s a damsel in […]
[…] As you can see, the United States is an exception that proves the rule. I don’t know that there are any policy implications, but I can’t help but wonder whether America’s greater belief in self-reliance is linked to the tendency of religious people to believe in individual ethics and moral behavior. […]
[…] As you can see, the United States is an exception that proves the rule. I don’t know that there are any policy implications, but I can’t help but wonder whether America’s greater belief in self-reliance is linked to the tendency of religious people to believe in individual ethics and moral behavior. […]
[…] there also are many libertarians who are traditional Christians, but they have no desire to oppress other people or to obtain coerced approval. They just want to […]
[…] there also are many libertarians who are traditional Christians, but they have no desire to oppress other people or to obtain coerced approval. They just want to […]
[…] also an insightful commentator on why freedom and morality go hand in hand, which suggests libertarians and conservatives should be strong […]
[…] also an insightful commentator on why freedom and morality go hand in hand, which suggests libertarians and conservatives should be strong […]
“The landscape:
If you didn’t even notice my lousy spelling since the issues I raise are all that counts, you’re a Libertarian.
If you find my lousy spelling annoying but move past that to consider the issue I raised, you are a Conservative.
If you see my lousy spelling as a threat to “the children” and an opportunity to ban me from this site, you’re a Liberal.
The first two can be reconciled. The third one can’t.”
==============================================
You might be a libertarian if you believe…
If you think 99 percent of politicians give the rest of them a bad name, you might be a Libertarian.
If you think taxes are ridiculously high, you might be a Libertarian.
If you think that the problem with civil servants is that too many of them are neither civil nor servants, you might be a Libertarian.
If someone asks you to take a urine test and you feel like telling them you’ll give them a taste test, you might be a Libertarian.
If you think that there are way too many laws about way too many things, you might be a Libertarian.
If you believe in the Bill of Rights, you might be a Libertarian.
If you believe that no one should go to jail for smoking flowers, you might be a Libertarian.
If you believe that just about everything should be bought and sold on an open market except politicians, you might be a Libertarian.
If you are glad you don’t get all the government you pay for, you might be a Libertarian.
If you think the US Constitution is the only contract with America you need, you might be a Libertarian.
If you think the only gun permit you need is the Second Amendment, you might be a Libertarian.
If the only way you can tell a left winger from a right winger is by which one of their hands is in which one of your pockets, you might be a Libertarian.
If you think the left is too left and the right is just plain wrong, you might be a Libertarian.
If you think polluters should pay for the environmental damage they cause, you might be a Libertarian.
[…] even promoted a “Fusionist” principle based on a very good column by Tim Carney, and I suspect a large majority of libertarians and […]
[…] think they’re mostly allies, in part because there is wide and deep agreement on the principle of individual responsibility. They may focus on different ill effects, but both camps understand that big government is a threat […]
[…] need to approve of drugs or use drugs to recognize the Drug War is misguided. You can be uptight and straight-laced like me, but still recognize that the Drug War does far more harm than good. Rate this:Share […]
[…] It’s the same thing over and over again, and it’s dull. But maybe this is just my inner social conservative […]
[…] the risk of stating the obvious, this doesn’t mean that anyone should use drugs. I’ve led a very boring life, for instance, and have never tried any illegal […]
” What the hell is a “left libertarian?” “Left” implies support for government imposed solutions for every problem, and “libertarian” just to opposite. ”
There are no mutually exclusive binary answers to these things.
I have a private hauler pick up my garbage, as do all of my neighbors. About 5 different haulers serve the homes on the street. On Monday, two different trucks show up at two different times to pick up garbage from some homes. On Thursday, the other three haulers show up at different times with their own trucks to pick up the other homes’ garbage.
Other areas with municipal garbage collection have one truck drive down the street and pick up everything on one trip. Since few people care about their garbage service aside from “Is it hauled away” and “is it cheap”, the sheer efficiency of a government solution lacking shareholder dividends and marketing budgets seems ideal.
Now if we were making cars, furniture, or video games, it would be a different story. But collecting trash, treating sewage, distributing electricity? Probably best handled by a boring, static monopoly who concentrates solely on providing the service.
As for the social or “moral” issues…
“But I’ve never thought my boring personal preferences should be part of the law”
That may be true in your “conservative” case. Unfortunately it’s not true in everyone else’s, certainly not that of major politicians who proudly call themselves “conservative”. The drug issue is the easy litmus test for this, and it’s a big one given how the government degrades the status of individual human beings upon finding them in violation of one of the prohibited substance laws.
[…] I shouldn’t have to write this (especially since I’ve already explained my socially conservative inclinations), but allow me to deflect foolish attacks by saying that being against federal programs to […]
To Smuck281.
You are correct that no libertarian should support the vast overeach of gov power that the left engages in today, and if they do they are not really libertarian.
But there can be left libertarians regarding which issues are emphasised. For example, right wing libertarians would primarilly emphasise fiscal conservatism, federalism, and small government, and would be more willing to compromise with the right on things like drugs, pornography, homosexuality, abortion, foreign wars, or antional defense. Left leaning libertarians would be much more absolute on things like drugs, pornagraphy, homosexuality, abortion, foreign wars, or national defense, and more inclined to side with some on the left on those issues. I can understand if social conservatives do not want to work with left leaning libertarians, but they should enthusiastically work with either centrist of right leaning libertarians, and centrist and right leaning libertarians should be willing to work with regular conservatives, as long as those conservatives dont grossly overeach on social issues or neglect small government fiscal policy.
Today, I think the Tea Party is very compatible with both centrist or right leaning libertarians, but may concern some left leaning libertarians, who would tend to side with Ron Paul on foreign policy, and might even be to the left of Paul on abortion. However the tendency of conservatives like Santorum, Buchanon, and Limbaugh, to overeach on social issues would be disconcerting to any libertarian, right, left, or center.
to FrankL
You have a very distorted idea of libertarianism. For one thing any libertarian would support federalism, and the 10th amendment. So if one state wanted to legalize polygamy, and another wanted to ban it, we would not contest it at the federal level. The 10th amendment applies. We also prefer that if something needs to be regulated at all, state level regulation is vastly better than federal level regulation. We might well have a position at the state level in the various states, if it expanded state level gov in a manner in which we did not approve, but we would oppose federal gov invovement unless it was clearly a federal issue, like commerce crossing state lines, or it discriminated against race or religion, or national defense. And of course if a state passed a state law that clearly was against the constitution, like a state passing segregation laws again, we would favor federal intervention there.
We also do not support anybody doing whatever they want to. For example, you cant do things that take away the freedom or property of others, like violence, theft, fraud, and if you do, you should be punished by law. But in cases where there is an informed voluntary action between 2 adults, that harms no 3rd party, we prefer to leave morality to the individual.
This article is quite correct that the primary threat to both libertarians and social conservatives today is the lefts tendency to legislate their morality, or lack of it, especially at the federal level. We should be unified against the left, but social conservatives will not get that unity, and that victory, if their goal is not individual liberty, and constitutionally limited government, as Reagan proposed, but merely replacing leftist legislated morality and federal overeach with right wing legislated morality and federal overeach, as occured under Bush 2.
[…] How to Reconcile Liberty, Morality, Conservatism, and Libertarianism with Carney’s Fusionist Theor… […]
One thing I have never been able to figure out. What the hell is a “left libertarian?”
There are certain words that just do not go together. “Left” and “Libertarian” would seem to be two. “Left” implies support for government imposed solutions for every problem, and “libertarian” just to opposite.
While Conservatives are not libertarians, they are certainly closer than anything on the left.
>”From the original Fusionist, Frank Meyer: “The simulacrum of virtuous acts brought about by the coercion of superior power, is not virtue, the meaning of which resides in the free choice of good over evil.””
From the original original fusionist, Edmund Burke. “Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.”
Ideally everybody would engage in virtuous acts because that “controlling power upon will and appetite” exists within them. Failing that, it is preferable that they engage in these acts due to the “coercion of superior power”. The least preferred option is that we permit them to engage in destructive acts – to themselves and to others – out of some misguided belief that the purpose of society is allow every man to freely decide between good and evil.
zbigniewmazurak, I think you were referring to my post. If so would you like to explain the benefits we receive from our allies that we wouldn’t have if we behaved more like they do?
My take–unless there is a whole lot of backroom payoff, which I doubt–is that most of the political capital we might gain by being such a military power is quickly swapped out as inducements for our allies to continue to back us. In order to patrol the world, we’re constantly pleading with them to back this or that initiative and inso doing more than lose any political capitol gained and end up indebted by their “goodwill.”
Certainly you can acknowledge that there is no gratuity shown to us by anyone for the lives and money we spend and dangers we put ourselves in.
R.C.
Brent Bozel does a nice job of explaining virtue and freedom and Conservative vs Libertarian and the irreconcilable tension between the two. Ideologically Conservatives (esp. Christian) and Libertarians are greatly at odds with one another. There really is no way to fuse the two ideologies. They just need to learn to live with each other to survive the onslaught of the greater evil of Progressivism. Mr. Mitchell’s theorem isn’t a bad start in that it’s about as close at it gets to Paul’s admonishion that all things are permisable but not all things are reccommended.
From the original Fusionist, Frank Meyer: “The simulacrum of virtuous acts brought about by the coercion of superior power, is not virtue, the meaning of which resides in the free choice of good over evil.”
To R.C.
If you are honestly under the impression that you are a Christian, and that the things you are saying represent Christian belief, then I’m here to tell you that you need to go back to Bible School.
[…] adopt Carney’s statement the conflict between conservatism and libertarianism would disappear. Dan Mitchell calls Carney’s statement, Carney’s Fusionist Theorem. Share:EmailFacebookStumbleUponDiggReddit […]
>”if the wrong is consensual sex not involving a minor, or a habit of paying your employees in straight dollars rather than with a mix of dollars and health insurance, then no force is involved. As a result, God’s Moral Law does not authorize us to oppose such activities by force, either as individuals, or by-proxy through our hirelings, the government.”
But “God’s Moral Law” says nothing about the right of consensual adults to do whatever they like as long as no force is involved. “God’s Moral Law” is not the same thing as Libertarian Moral Law, which is what you are invoking here.
In point of fact, “God’s Moral Law” does indeed authorize us to use force to prevent consenting adults doing all sorts of things. Even Libertarian Moral Law authorizes us to do so, although to prevent different sorts of things.
You are wrong that all “foreign entanglements” are bad and don’t serve America’s national security well. Many allies, including many allies in Europe (though not necessarily the NATO alliance itself, as a whole) are valuable and very helpful. Many defense commitments to America’s allies are still worth maintaining, and some of them HAVE to be maintained. You are making a bad mistake by going to bed with the isolationist left.
To my fellow Christians (and also of interest, I expect, to Jews, Muslims, maybe Deists):
In Judeo-Christian morality, God grants individuals free will, but circumscribes our authority to use free will any way we please with certain limitations, called the Moral Law (most of which are discoverable through Natural Law, and special revelation mostly serves to “check our work” rather than to provide radically new information about what is/isn’t moral).
Part of the free will God grants us includes the ability to use force against other persons. However, using force against them is normally a violation of their intrinsic dignity; so it is normally prohibited by the Moral Law.
The exception is when our use of force is intended to counteract wrongful force already initiated by another. We can counteract it by deterring it with a threat of force, by forcibly halting it in progress, or by forcibly punishing it after the fact. These uses of force are authorized under God’s Moral Law.
We are authorized to use force in this way, first, at an individual level. Thus I have moral authorization to forcibly halt a home invader or a rape in progress.
However, we are also social creatures, and one of the intentions God had in granting us both a limited authorization to use force and a social nature is that we should band together and organize our mutual defense against threats to our rights. This is called instituting a government, and it consists of hiring (as our employees) a group of persons trained to organize or wield force on our behalf, and delegating to them our just authority to use force (which we ourselves originally obtained from God).
Thus governments are our proxies and hirelings.
However, one cannot delegate authority to one’s employee if one doesn’t have that authority to begin with. I cannot, for example, delegate to an employee the authority to paint Dan Mitchell’s house. I’m not Dan Mitchell, so I don’t have that authority, and can’t delegate it.
Government is unique in that it is the only organization in our society to which we grant authority to use force to achieve its ends. But that authority to use force is not unlimited, because it is delegated from us, and our just authority to use force is not unlimited.
Therefore, whenever the government contemplates using its compulsive power against persons, we must ask ourselves: Do we, in and of ourselves, have just authority as individuals to do the same thing?
If we don’t, then we could not possibly have delegated that authority to our hirelings, the government. Which means that government cannot possibly have just authority to do it.
Examples leap to the mind:
Example 1: Tom, Dick, and Harry live in a triplex. Tom notices Harry’s having problems paying his bills, and being a swell guy, slips $100 under his door. But he notices that isn’t enough; Harry’s still struggling. So Tom goes to Dick and says, “Harry’s having financial troubles; give him a little something to help out.” Dick answers, “I’d love to, but my twin daughters are just about to enter college, and tuition’s killing me, and I have next-to-nothing set aside for my own retirement. So, gotta pass.” In reply, Tom pulls out a gun and says, “No, Dick, you’re going to give me $100 for Harry.”
Is Tom morally justified in doing this? No? Then neither is the government, and the entire Welfare State, from soup to nuts, is a tyrannical usurpation.
Example 2: Alice (being either Catholic, or conservative Eastern Orthodox, or very conservative Protestant, or among the conservative Muslims or orthodox Jews who share this view) is convinced that condom-use is a willful disobedience to God’s command to be fruitful and multiply, a sign of disrespect for human life (treating babies as a disease), a form of Onanism, and physically symbolizes an isolation and mistrust between lovers. (I’ll give you a hug, but only if I’m wearing a hazmat suit.) Her next-door-neighbors are married Episcopalians, and Alice sees the wife carrying in some groceries with a box of condoms among them.
Assume for a moment that Alice’s views about condoms are actually right; that the Creator Of The Universe feels similarly. Even if this is the case, does Alice have moral justification to prevent her neighbors from using condoms, at gunpoint? No? Then neither does the government.
Example 3: Margaret, being a sexually liberated child of the 60’s, has lots of lovers, both male and female. She believes that Alice’s views are outrageous. She wants the state to compel all children, from middle school on, to receive non-heteronormative sexual education with heavy promotion of condoms to prevent STDs. She’s also a Malthusian, a zero-population-growth advocate and thinks all women should be on the pill. In her zip code are a hospital, a soup kitchen, an adoption agency, a health insurance firm, and a hardware store, all privately owned, whose owners are all faithful Catholic laity. In nearby zipcodes are other hospitals, soup kitchens, adoption agencies, and hardware stores, owned by folk with views more similar to her own.
Is it morally licit for Margaret threaten the hospital and soup kitchen and hardware store owners at gunpoint unless they give free contraceptives to their employees? Is it morally licit for her to pull a gun on the adoption agency unless it allows adoptions by gay couples? Is it morally licit for her to compel the health insurance firm to cover contraception, sterilization, and abortion? No? Then neither does the government have just authority to do these things.
Is this all about religion? Well, let’s ask: What if the hardware store owner is an atheist who nevertheless is pro-life because they believe the unborn are persons who have a right to life, not from a personal Creator, but just as an intrinsic part of being alive and human? Is it okay for Margaret to point a gun at the atheist hardware store owner, to compel him to purchase health insurance coverage for his employees, and specifically coverage that includes abortion?
No. And neither does government have any just authority to compel these things. For, government gets its just authority from the people, and they, from God, and God’s Moral Law prohibits individuals from using force against one another except to defend one another from some more wrongful use of force.
Thus the most faithfully Judeo-Christian form of government is the Libertarian form. It is not that there aren’t a lot of immoral things that we wish people didn’t do. There are; but, our authority under God’s Moral Law to oppose these things by armed force is proportional to the degree that the wrongs, themselves, are forcible.
If the wrong is rape or murder, our authorization to use force is clear.
If the wrong is fraud or contract violation (which is merely a delayed form of fraud) then, while the proportionate use of force may be lesser than with murder, our authorization to use force is still clear, because fraud is intellectual forcing, in which you use deceit to force the victim to do something they otherwise would not have done. So force is still authorized.
But if the wrong is consensual sex not involving a minor, or a habit of paying your employees in straight dollars rather than with a mix of dollars and health insurance, then no force is involved. As a result, God’s Moral Law does not authorize us to oppose such activities by force, either as individuals, or by-proxy through our hirelings, the government.
If we try to use force in those areas, we’re breaking God’s Moral Law. Our good intentions do not excuse us, as St. Paul says: “You may not do evil, that good come of it.” (Romans 3:8)
You misinterpreted my comment. My point was that because the Constitution is silent on the issues raised, it is not under the Federal purview unless the Constitution is amended, I clearly stated that because the Constitution is silent, the regulation of those items is left to the States or the people. That is quite the opposite of advocating that judges re-interpret the Constitution, and thereby in effect amend it.
One huge point of division between the conservatives and the left-libertarians is foreign intervention. I’m a right-libertarian, nonetheless I agree that we should pull out of world affairs and think that can be reconciled with social conservatives if presented differently.
The left-libertarian shares many of the same mental processes of the left wing. The left-libertarian and liberal will not admit truths about themselves because their brains allow them to perform the necessary mental gymnastics needed to cover over their true intentions. So they are incapable of admitting that the reason they want to pull back from world affairs is because they believe its counterproductive to their own well being. Instead they demonize US interventions of the past and those who proposed them but mentally block out any possibility that those very same interventions might just have been necessary and morally justifiable.
And it truely is a mental block. Complete with a religious intensity of assuredness about their motivations. Many take it a step further by attacking interventionists as warmongers and bullies. Of course the hypocrisy is off the charts in that their own motivations are selfish.
So when social conservatives hear this, they understandably recoil and attack the left-libertarian by justifying interventions of the past. And if it were morally justifiable in the past, it must be in the future as well. This serves only to harden their respective beliefs and results in bad blood.
Thing is, if the left-libertarian were capable of being honest with his motivations he and the social conservative might just come to an agreement. The truth is this: most of our foreign interventions of the past were either morally justifiable or at the least understandable under the circumstances when you come to learn more about the details and motivations of the players.
But that doesn’t mean its in our self-interest to continue intervening. And the people who we attempt to protect, are generally exactly like everybody else in the outside world: back-stabbing, selfish, jealous, and bigoted who have no real concept of altruism and so suspect that our true motivations must be “global domination,” “exploitation,” or just plain bullying for the sake of our own egos.
Playing world cop is dangerous, putting us in the crosshairs of anybody we oppose. And its extremely costly to maintain the military necessary to project force. I know if we don’t do it nobody will. True enough. But also knowing what we do about human weaknesses, foibles, and plain numbing ignorance, makes the cost of foreign intervention highly questionable, certainly counterproductive and usually leaving us looking like stooges and open to dark suspicions even by our allies.
This is the argument that needs to be made for pulling back from playing the global A-team. It may not leave us with the lofty moral high ground we had before (that only we could recognize), but to maintain the status quo–even if for only the best reasons–damages us in the eyes of even the very people we protect.
It takes a mighty big man to swallow the abuse and maintain the course. Some might even say a foolish man. By pulling back we also stand to gain from the very same countries who criticize us now being forced to come to terms with a crushing reality that we have kept at bay. What could be more gratifying than to see these same people begging us to return? Something we could then leverage to our better advantage. No more free lunch. And they would fall in line because they would now know the consequences of a world without the United States.
On the other hand, peace might just break out across the globe once we leave the scene. And once again, we would win by living in a peaceful world. (Admittedly highly unlikely.)
Note: I know not all social conservatives are interventionists, but they do seem to be amongst the last proponents.
I fail to find the difference between Social Conservatism and Moral Socialism. We will always find that Moral Socialists (Both Conservatives and Progressives) will never be satisfied. That failure lies in that Centrally Planning Morality (Legislating or Coercing it) leaves those coerced without Morality in the end. Morality is a function of Free Will. Once coerced, Free Will no longer governs one’s behavior. Once one’s behavior is not governed by Free Will, immorality follows once the coercion is is eased. This only makes those who Centrally Plan Morality more eager to coerce it.
Central Planning = Central Authority = Central Ownership = Serfdom
If you assume the role to Centrally Plan a group of people’s lives, property, labor, then you must assume the Authority to do so. If you have the Authority to Plan someone else’s life, property, labor, then you de facto Own that life, property, labor. Central Planning ALWAYS ends up Central Ownership.
Both D’s and R’s are Central Planners.
>”Following Carney’s Fusionist Theorem, should polygamy be legal? Should drugstores sell heroin over the counter?”
If we follow the theorem then the people of e.g California should be able to make the marriage law in California be whatever they want. So there is no one fixed answer to the question “should polygamy be legal?”. It should be legal if the people want it to be, and otherwise not.
Libertarians find this problematical because they hate the idea of representative government, and they hate the idea of different laws in different places. In the perfect libertarian world everybody on earth would be subject to the exact same laws, and these laws would be based on libertarian theory and not subject under any circumstances to alteration by the rabble.
>”If you want the prohibition against polygamy or sale of heroin against the law at the Federal level, then amend the Constitution…”
Seems to me that you have that exactly backwards. if you want polygamy (or gay marriage) to be legalized at the federal level, then amend the federal constitution to make it so.
At present the left – and to some extent the libertarians – are constantly amending the constitution via judicial ‘interpretation”, and demanding that those who oppose them scale the much higher bar of passing a genuine constitutional amendment via the process described in the constitution itself.
@ David:
Following Carney’s Fusionist Theorem, should polygamy be legal? Should drugstores sell heroin over the counter?
IMO, as long as tax dollars are not used to subsidize plural marriage (ie, let the families fend for/take care of themselves; and, while not a fan of plural marriage, how is that any worse than an inner city male fathering multiple children by multiple women- at least the polygamist is making some commitment to his wife/s and children.) Re, heroin- as long as the user does not seek government support/help should he/she have problems as a result of that heroin use, it doesn’t bother me if they use, just don’t ask me to pay, via my tax dollars, for your medical care, support, etc… should you need it as a result of your personal decision to use herion.
That’s called freedom.
The landscape:
If you didn’t even notice my lousy spelling since the issues I raise are all that counts, you’re a Libertarian.
If you find my lousy spelling annoying but move past that to consider the issue I raised, you are a Conservative.
If you see my lousy spelling as a threat to “the children” and an opportunity to ban me from this site, you’re a Liberal.
The first two can be reconciled. The third one can’t.
“Should drugstores sell heroin over the counter?”
I believe the operative word in his therom is “guide”. I doubt murder is anything anyone would consider a matter best left as a personal decision. Suggesting that respecting individual liberty is the same as anarchy evades the hard questions far more than Mr. Carney’s therom.
I agree with the above Fusionist Theorem. In response to the “hard questions” – what does the Constitution say on the subject? If it is silent, then the question reverts to the States and/or the People. If you want the prohibition against polygamy or sale of heroin against the law at the Federal level, then amend the Constitution…
Following Carney’s Fusionist Theorem, should polygamy be legal? Should drugstores sell heroin over the counter?
This Fusionist Theorem is nothing but the usual Lib Lib Libertarian evasion of hard questions.
Using Carneys Fusionist Theorem as a platform … “The moral law should guide our personal actions, and individual liberty should guide our political decisions.”
Question: Assuming that the evidence and findings provided by Sheriff Apairo are true, regarding Barack Obama’s legitamacy, what are the next steps to rectify and punish those who knowingly participated in this fraud? What can a citizen do to help in the process?