PJ Media

Tannim:

Thanks for the relatively clear position statements. As I see it, the problem with the basic libertarian position (an extreme version of which would include the philosophy of Robert Nozick) is that it’s founded on the idea of liberty rather than sovereignty. (This, btw, is something I learned in a James Buchanan seminar.) It turns out that there’s a point at which an excess of liberty results in a deficiency of control. In two dimentions someone walking on ice has more pure freedom of movement than someone walking on land, but asbent the control surfaces (which are constraints on freedom; there’s no other way to put it) it would become impossible to follow through on a motivated act. It’s an error to think that freedom can be sort of infinitely acquired, without crippling the acquirer. When you don a pair of skates you’re limiting your freedom of movement in order to coordinate movement and self control.

However, that’s not entirely Buchanan’s argument, so I don’t want to misrepresent him. His argument is that everything depends on your ability to exit. (Note: with too much freedom you may still exit, but it won’t be under your control. It would be more like an accident, or an involuntary act.) In order to exercise sovereignty you have to be obligated, which is what gives you “purchase.” And there, therefore, have to be reasonable penalties for eschewing obligations. That’s the gray area. It’s possible for people to be saddled with so many obligations they can’t move, and it’s also possible to have so few that intention doesn’t mean anything.

As I said, the US has the most libertarian-friendly political culture on the planet. Our conservatives are far more libertarian than conservatives in either Europe or the other English settler societies, with which they can be constructively compared. And one of the things that bothers me about the strain of libertarianism that builds on long term conspiracies to separate us from our liberties is that they not only presume Americans have been idiots, but that we’ve been idiots for a long time. Alan Stang, for instance, presumes that my ancestors who fought in the Western Armies during the Civil War and who became members of the Grand Army, had no legitimate claim to honor for having sacrificed to end chattel slavery. They were simply dupes in Lincoln’s plan to expand state power.

Well, if this really was a conspiracy… then not only is it too powerful and longstanding to resist but it must also end up on the morally defensible side of the ledger. With Islamic Totalitarianism I think we face a challenge directly analogous to the challenge faced by the veterans in the Grand Army, and the modern crop of veterans will have a similar impact on the culture as they return from victorious engagements. This should be a source of dread for the modern Marxisant left, but it also may not be a huge comfort for doctrinaire libertarians.