The Libertarian Illusion

Libertarianism is on the rise in America. As conservatives are faced with the prospect of greater government involvement in the health care system they instinctively turn to their limited-government roots. As they search the political landscape for someone, anyone, with whom they can relate they find the only thoughtful breed of conservatives left: libertarians. I must admit, I hear the siren call of the libertarian message and have to talk myself into not joining their crusade. There is a part of me that yearns to believe their message. Libertarians are fantastic at pointing out many of the problems in our society. Whether it relates to American foreign policy, the Federal Reserve, the welfare state, the educational system, etc. I could go on. So many keen insights, all derived from the libertarian commitment to individual liberty.

So what is my problem with libertarianism? As I said, they are great at pointing out societal defects, they are terrible at solutions. Essentially what they say to EVERY problem that exists is that it's the governments fault, and if we simply got the government out of the way, problems would fix themselves. That's pretty much it. The public happiness and societal good is negatively correlated to the size and reach of the government. Those on the libertarian fringe even theorize that government is not necessary at all. All government functions could be privatized and the resulting anarchist state would naturally morph into a type of utopia.

So I like the idea of getting government out of our lives. In fact I love the idea. That is why libertarianism appeals to me so much. The problem is, I think the government is running our lives because we let them in. We want them there. And by letting them in, we have grown dependent on them. And I don't mean just those who collect food stamps, or live in government subsidized housing. I mean all of us. Take our foreign policy as an example. Our founding fathers spoke pretty clearly about not intervening in the political affairs of other countries. Just look at the mess we have made in the middle east by not following that counsel. So why do we interfere? It's simple: Americans want the goods that come from the countries we interfere with. In the case of the middle east, it's oil. I recently listened to a book by Andrew J Bacevich entitled The Limits of Power:The End of American Exceptionalism.  Mr. Bacevich is a West Point grad, Vietnam vet, and a tenured professor at Boston University.  He patiently explains that although we didn't invade Iraq on behalf of Big Oil, if there was no oil in the middle east it would have zero strategic significance to us.  Without oil the middle east would be RWANDA. We wouldn't care about it AT ALL. Remember the genocide in Rwanda in the 90's? If we are really so concerned about promoting democracy and coming to the aid of our fellow men, why didn't we help out with that one? It's because we had no national or economic interests in Rwanda. Our leaders are aware of the political fallout that would occur should the steady supply of cheap energy from the middle east be disrupted, so they oblige their constituents by engaging in immoral wars and building up a ridiculous foreign police force to maintain stability in the region.

I use the middle east as an example, but we could point to virtually every place where the government is inappropriately involved and find ourselves staring in the mirror when looking for the real culprit. And when the government gets involved for any extended period of time it becomes like a cancer that can only be removed by damaging other vital organs in the process. As an example, if the welfare state were brought to an abrupt end the resulting instability and public uprising could easily threaten a worse calamity than the present state of affairs. History teaches us that such episodes of instability threaten our liberty. Just look at the times in American history where the State has expanded the fastest: the Civil War, the Great Depression, and 9-11. Uprooting the cancer may lead us even closer to killing the liberties that we still enjoy.

So now for the solutions. John Adams famously said:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

If you've read any of my previous posts you realize, no doubt, that I am a hopeless idealist. I sincerely believe that the solutions to our problems are really quite simple, but they require individuals to return to traditional principles and a proper moral understanding. Do you want the United States to stop nation building and maintain a more modest foreign policy? The solution lies in Americans becoming more moderate in their appetites and grateful for what they have. There might be a painful transition, but we may very well avoid any future stings that are sure to come from incessantly kicking the foreign hornets nests. Do you want the welfare state to come to an end? The solution is not in uprooting the government, the solution lies in Americans rebuilding the institutions of marriage and the family. The solution lies in Americans turning back to God and rebuilding their churches and charitable institutions. When those institutions are healthy again, demand for government will decline.

Do you want to help your country remain free? Build a strong marriage, love and support your family, get back to church, donate your time and means to charitable causes. Live within your means. Work hard for a more prosperous future, but be grateful for what you have. Set a good example to your fellow citizens and do not hesitate to raise your voice in support of vital moral issues. As English philosopher Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing."

How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?

A common question posed to defenders of traditional marriage is, "How would gay marriage hurt your marriage? What does it matter to you?".  Many of us are stumped by the question.  The following post is an attempt to answer this question:

The answer is: it doesn't hurt my marriage (if I were married of course!).  But changing the definition of marriage to include same sex partnerships will hurt society and potentially my freedom.  Government support of traditional marriage implicitly supports the particular family structure that emerges from such marriages.  The structure of mother, father, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, grandfather, grandmother and so on is the natural institution that flows from the foundation of marriage. When such marriages remain intact, this 'family tree' can become quite large where each branch has a blood tie to other branches of the tree with a resulting natural affection and concern for each member's welfare.  To quote Professor Robert P. George from Princeton, "This structure is the original and best department of health, education and welfare."

If government were to support gay marriage, they would essentially be withdrawing their support of this traditional family structure.  Children are not a natural extension of gay relationships, so if government supported the formation of gay 'families' they would be supporting the idea that it is perfectly healthy and morally neutral to willfully bring children into a non-traditional family setting.  They would essentially be saying that there is no ideal family structure.  It is true that single mothers exist, gay couples end up with children from previous relationships or through invitro, and other alternative family situations arise.  But should government be encouraging  these scenarios?  Are we really to believe that a position of neutrality would produce no ill effects on society as a whole?

As indicated in my previous post 'A Defense of Traditional Marriage', such natural institutions as the traditional family are critical if we are to maintain the American ideal of limited government.  As the family structure breaks down,  someone must step in to fill the role.  Politicians are only too happy to fill this role as they can secure power in governmental spheres by promising to take care of the victims. This leads to the deprivation of liberty in various forms.  I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones that come most easily to mind:

1) Property rights violations.  Politicians begin participating in schemes of wealth redistribution to care for the poor and the needy.  Although they are trumpeted as acts of fairness, these schemes are really the inevitable result of a people who have failed to take care of their own.

2) Loss of religious liberty.  Marriage and the traditional family structure are pre-political  institutions.  Government did not invent marriage, but government has chosen to promote and recognize this natural institution in every culture we are aware of.  When a legal definition is pitted against a pre-political and religious definition, attacks on religious liberty are certain to follow.  Take the example of Catholic Charities in Boston.  This group was forced out of the adoption business because church leaders refused to allow adoption to gay couples.  Rather than compromise their religious convictions, they gave up their adoption license.  Gay marriage activists have, and will use anti-discrimination laws to whip the masses into line.

I would appreciate it if anyone can challenge my assertions, or post arguments supporting the idea of gay marriage.  If I am missing something, I would like to understand the other side of the argument more clearly.

A Defense of Traditional Marriage

When the leaders of my LDS faith came out in support of Prop 8 last summer, I initially questioned their involovement. I understand our theological position on marriage, but my libertarian leanings led me to the conclusion that the best solution to the marriage question politically might be to get the government out of the business of regulating it entirely. Make it a private matter, like a baptism or bar mitzvah. I continued to think that way through the election. Earlier this year I came across a talk given by Robert P. George from Princeton University at BYU last fall (link to the speech: here )  The talk is entitled On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government. In this speech he touches briefly on what I have since learned are his major themes: the proper role of government, defense of marriage, defense of life, and a warning against the dangers of judicial activism. This is one of those rare speeches that has given me reason to completely rethink my political footings. Particularly my beliefs about the proper role of government and how that relates to the marriage question

The strict libertarian position holds that the government's role ought to be limited to the defense of life, liberty, and property. Any departure from this role represents an unjust usurpation of the rights and liberties of the people. When it comes to issues like marriage, they would say that this is a private matter and the government should stay out. I recall listening to Ron Paul address a group once. He was advocating the abolition of certain Federal agencies like the Department of Education and Health and Welfare I think. Some of the listeners were asking him who would take care of those responsibilities if the government stepped out. He told them these were responsibilities of the family. Later I learned that Ron Paul was against the idea of a constitutional ammendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. I was troubled by the idea that a strict libertarian like Ron Paul could assign responsibility to the family, but deny the government the ability to support the family through the defense of marriage. And yet I found it hard to argue with him.

Then I listened to Professor George. What the libertarian position misses, he argues, is the subsidiary, but just as critical, role that the government plays in promoting what he calls a 'healthy moral culture'. This includes promoting and defending, through incorporation into the legal structure (not necessarily financially supporting) those institutions that shoulder the primary responsibilities of educating, nurturing, and caring for the members of a society. These insitutions include churches, the family, and other civic and charitable organizations such as the Boy Scouts.

Why is this subsidiary role so crucial you might ask? Well, as our founding fathers rightly saw, the key to a free society lies in keeping government limited. For government to remain limited to its primary role of defending life, liberty and property, the citizenry must take care of their primary roles of educating, nurturing, and caring for each other. As the institutions that fill these needs break down, the result is predictable: demand for government grows. When families and churches break down, there are still children that need to be fed, educated, and nurtured. There are mothers, expecially in many of our inner cities, that cannot afford, or emotionally manage the responsibilities. There are still poor people that can't take care of themselves. These unfortunate souls become fodder for eager politicians who seize the opportunity to win votes by promising them that the government will take care of their problems. So government grows, and our liberty is threatened.

So why is it important that the government continue to support traditional marriage? Because our liberty depends on the formation of strong families. The family is founded on marriage. The debate on gay marriage is really just the final act in the destruction of the traditional family that started in the 1960's with the divorce culture. Rather than continuing the madness, its time we reinforce the institution of marriage and restore it to its proper place.