The Libertarian Paradox

By Rich Kozlovich

Let me start out by saying there is much in this presentation that I find true and appealing, but unworkable.  Demographics and time will always work against it. Libertarians are really big on maximizing individual autonomy, seriously reducing the size of government, freedom of choice in all things including association, largely unrestricted immigration, and unrestricted use of drugs.   As I said, I find much to like in their views, but I find their views are somewhat childlike. 

I have libertarian writers who allow me to publish their work, and very often that work is excellent, and very appealing to conservatives.  However, when it comes to some of those positions, I find their conclusions untenable.  I think this article, The Libertarian Paradox by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is a good demonstration of that. 

Libertarian thinking reminds me very much like military strategies. Did you know that every military strategy ever planned was perfect? At least until they met the enemy, who also had a "perfect" plan in place. That's when everything starts to fall apart.  It's the one who is most able to recognize the lack of perfection in their “perfect plan”, and quickly adapt it to whatever difficulties the enemies “perfect plan” is causing, is the one who wins. 

Libertarianism is basic fundamental morality; a morality that is foundation to the human makeup.  It is a reality that is imprinted in our makeup and governed by a force we call - conscience!

The trouble with conscience as an absolute arbiter of right and wrong is that the conscience can be changed, adjusted…..or…lets just say the conscience can be “trained”, and it can be scarred to insensitivity.  All the atrocities committed by governments in the 20th century is evidence of that.

What molds the conscience?  Time and circumstance!  If the entire world practiced the form of libertarianism as outlined to some extent here…and this isn’t the only intellectual outline for this philosophy….it would be very nice.   

At least until someone desired those things others have.  Immigration changes a society, massive illegal immigration destroys the society it invades.  I published this piece, War's Not the Answer! Well Then, What's the Question?, asking:

What if someone - let's call them barbarians - wants to have a war with you?  A real war?  The fact of the matter is war can be avoided on each and ever occasion.... Just surrender. Of course you realize once you surrender, you're no longer allowed to spout stupid stuff, because barbarians are now in charge of your life. And since they think war really is the answer, no matter the question, you'll be required to support their wars, or be shot! Remember, barbarians really think war, which is killing, destruction and mayhem, is the answer.  Do you really think they'll care what you think?   So then, that bodes well the question:  Does anyone want to guess just how many "war isn't the answer snowflakes" will decide to be shot instead of going to war?

I had one cartoon in my office years ago that showed Moses holding the Ten Commandments saying:  It's the Ten Commandments, not the Ten Recommendations. 

In spite of the governing morality imprinted on our conscience, The Ten Commandments apparently needed to be outlined as the ten "commandments", not ten "recommendations".  Why?  Because people will always find ways to rationalize their views to their own benefit.  

As I read this article I started to think about that cartoon and the Jews as they entered the Promised Land.  What form of government did they have?  None to speak of!  The land was broken up into tribal areas and those tribal areas were broken up into homesteads that became hereditary holdings.  

Even if they sold the land it was returned at some point in the future.  But people were pretty much able to “do that which was right in their own eyes”.  What happened?  They eventually demanded a king to rule over them, judge them, and defend them against foreign enemies.     

Libertarianism is a nice foundational philosophy that will be a moving force for conservatives, but it holds little appeal as a lasting, effective stand alone governing philosophy that will stand the test of time.   

Why?  

Because for libertarianism to work it would require people to become much more introspective and less self serving, and be that way forever.  A Catholic priest once said:

 "If you ever find the perfect organization, join it.  However, once you have joined it; it has now become somewhat less than perfect!”   

I have yet to find any flaw in that thought, because people will always be people.