Francis Porretto, a writer whom I admire, and whose blog Eternity Road is on my regular reading list, wrote to say that I mischaracterized libertarians the other day in my post entitled Why I am a Constitutional Conservative. He took some umbrage from that, and from several other things I wrote, or that the featured writer that day, Ann Coulter had written. Frankly, he was right to call me out on it. I tried to respond to Mr. Porretto in comments, but Blogger kept sending me through a do loop that prevented me from posting. In short, I sent an e-mail. There followed a short exchange, but concluded with gracious reply at the Eternity Road website.
Now, I will admit that in answer to why limiting government is right, I did give a Christian response. There is great power in this particular argument. The Declaration of Independence says we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights. If our Creator gave us our Rights, who indeed is anyone to take them away? Since the Declaration has stood now for 235 years without being successfully disputed, that makes the argument pretty solid. Now, most libertarian thought that I am aware of starts on a similar premise, but makes the assertion that we each own ourselves. Either starting point eventually can yield the rightness of a limited government. Either assertion can be dismissed by those who wish to do so. But I admit that those who do not already believe will have less patience for the argument from religion.
I believe my friend, Francis, believes, as I do, in the fallibility of man. But what of libertarian anarchists, and libertarian minarchists like Murray Rothbard? At core, they must believe in the essential goodness of man, for how else are these philosophies supposed to work in the real world? Then there are those who claim the title libertarian who believe that property and resources should be owned in common. Frankly, I have no idea how that is derived from the premise that we each own ourselves, and I suspect the title libertarian is a false flag flying for Leftists pure and simple. In many ways, the term has lost its meaning. On the other hand, the word "conservative" has been abused and misused to the point where I am sometimes afraid to use it. Conservatism grew out of the old Classical Liberal movement. Conservatives wanted to conserve the gains made by the Revolution and the Constitution in human liberty. Pretty unimaginative, these conservatives. They were the guys standing athwart history and yelling "slow down, analyse the consequences both intended and unintended of what you are doing!" But then there started to be fiscal conservatives (who were social liberals), and social conservatives (some of whom believed in big government programs), religious conservatives, neo-conservatives (communists who got mugged by reality and came in from the cold) and of course the ultimate betrayal, compassionate conservatives. The KKK, skin heads, and neo-Nazis have been described as conservative, but actually are collectivists and belong on the Left. Now everyone running for office as a Republican wants to call themselves a conservative. The term has lost its meaning as well.
Fran, and you too Curmudgeon, I propose we call ourselves simply Constitutionalists. Oh, and yes, I have yet to find a point of disagreement between us. Finally, I will try to do better the next time.
God bless and keep you,
PolyKahr
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Not umbrage, Poly. Never umbrage. A difference of opinion is all.
ReplyDelete"Constitutionalists" is a fine appellation, and one I've used in the past. But we'll still be compelled to face challenges -- Why limit government? What should the limits be? Why those and not others? Why should it be made difficult to extend the limits? What relevance does your conception of rights have to limiting government? Is this fundamentally a religious matter? -- and we'll have to think further, and hard, about the best responses.
Our hour is upon us.