Congressman from Lake Jackson,Texas in the metro Houston area. He works as a medical doctor. He has been a consistent classical liberal or libertarian as congressman and a presidential candidate (as a Republican in 2008 and a Libertarian in 1988). He holds to a consistent constitutionalist position upholding the Lockean political philosophy that the United States was founded upon. He argues for a nighwatchman view of the State consistent with the Jeffersonaian view of the U.S. Constitution.
On social issues Congressman Paul is a conservative. He supports the right to life and opposes abortion on demand. He also opposes open borders policy on immigration realizing that it is crucial to protect the culture the American political, legal, and economic system is rooted in. Even though some of his supporters are social and moral nihilists, Paul has maintained a consistent social conservatism and realizes that the main source of leftist attack on American traditions has been the Federal government. Even though he supports drug and sex deregulation, he has never endorsed illicit drug use or aberrant sexual practices. His position is to allow nature to take its course with reckless and immoral behavior rather than placing such behavior on par with traditional morality.
This same logic is present in his economic policy. Companies or individuals who can create new products or services that people choose to buy because they perceive these products or services can help them should be free to prosper. Those who offer poor quality products or services should be allowed to fail. Government should only provide basic rules for these pursuits to take place, such as prevention of fraud and enforcing contracts. As Milton Friedman used to say, the market forces people to "put up or shut up." This maxim applies to life-styles as well as business enterprises.
On social issues Congressman Paul is a conservative. He supports the right to life and opposes abortion on demand. He also opposes open borders policy on immigration realizing that it is crucial to protect the culture the American political, legal, and economic system is rooted in. Even though some of his supporters are social and moral nihilists, Paul has maintained a consistent social conservatism and realizes that the main source of leftist attack on American traditions has been the Federal government. Even though he supports drug and sex deregulation, he has never endorsed illicit drug use or aberrant sexual practices. His position is to allow nature to take its course with reckless and immoral behavior rather than placing such behavior on par with traditional morality.
This same logic is present in his economic policy. Companies or individuals who can create new products or services that people choose to buy because they perceive these products or services can help them should be free to prosper. Those who offer poor quality products or services should be allowed to fail. Government should only provide basic rules for these pursuits to take place, such as prevention of fraud and enforcing contracts. As Milton Friedman used to say, the market forces people to "put up or shut up." This maxim applies to life-styles as well as business enterprises.
I am voting for Ron Paul because he stands for the principles Jefferson articulated in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence.
by Tex in Tex January 28, 2008
Get the Ron Paul mug.Liberal elitist hipster: That is so horrible that MacDonald's is everywhere in the world. They are breaking down indigenous culture and traditional folkways. Monoculture everywhere. (Moments later) It is so wonderful that we are breaking down these backward ways of life in the South and any other traditional culture. We want to spread cosmopolitanism everywhere. I am a citizen of the world!
by Tex in Tex February 21, 2008
Get the monoculture mug.Plural of those who subscribe to a humanitarian philosophy. Humanitarians feel sorry for certain people, and find pleasure and a sense of significance in taking care of them. Some humanitarians use private, voluntary means to help others while other humanitarians prefer to use the State to force the general public to fund their efforts.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
"Someone is at the door asking for money to help the poor."
"Oh, it's one of those humanitarians who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
"Oh, it's one of those humanitarians who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
by Tex in Tex June 19, 2008
Get the humanitarians mug.The word 'liberal' is derived from the Latin word 'libertas,' meaning 'liberty.' Liberalism started in 17th Century Europe as a logical and historical development from Protestantism with its focus on an individual having a direct personal relationship with God. Liberalism is also rooted in the English tradition of individual rights and privileges. John Locke's *Second Treatise on Civil Government* articulated the basic principles of liberalism--limited government, private property, equality before the law, the rule of law (meaning an impartial application and enforcement of the broad-based laws that allow for a wide scope of private discretion), and some democratic influence to restrict those in power. Locke, himself a Protestant Christian, believed people to be naturally sinful and selfish, but rational and social enough so that they could peacefully interact with one another. Laws are needed to maintain order, but largely the State should be restricted only to protecting private property (broadly defined as a person's private sphere), and to enforce contracts. The Founders of the United States were all followers of Locke. Jefferson's *Declaration of Independence* is an American adaptation of Locke's basic political philosophy. Puritan John Milton's defense of free speech in his *Areopagitica* provided the intellectual justification of the First Amendment from a Christian metaphysic.
With John Stuart Mill we find a bridge to another conception of liberty and equality that moves more toward socialism. Mill was highly influenced by his wife, Harriet Taylor, who was more of an egalitarian than a liberal. Here we find Mill arguing against classical notions of liberalism. Mill argued, contrary to Locke, that a just law is an encroachment on a person's liberty. He also contended that informal, non-coercive public opinion was a violation the rights of the individual as are traditional prohibitions, say on sexual morality or gender roles. In these moves to conceive of liberty in a broader way that simply overt coercion, Mill started to blur the line between private and public. Mill was also concerned about the distribution of wealth and income in ways that the Founders of the U.S. were not. Mill,at times, argued for a greater role for the State to actually achieve equality of result and actual liberty from others as opposed to a purely formal equality and liberty that the classical liberals sought.
These differences point to a fundamental divergence between classical and modern left liberals. Another such difference is the basic character of human nature. Locke and the U.S. Founders believed that humans were naturally selfish and dangerous in their exercise of power. For this reason, the U.S. Founders placed explicit restrictions on the State including a Bill of Rights, federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Jefferson's admonition that the power that the State has to do something for you also has the power to do something to you follows from the doctrine of human depravity found in Christianity.
Left liberals tend to view humans as naturally good or malleable. No one is born evil. So, with the proper education and proper social and economic environment, people can naturally cooperate and care for each other. Brutal punishment is inhumane and simply aggravates past injustices making those convicted of a crime even more alienated and victimized by the unequal social order. What is needed to avert criminal behavior is greater inclusion and benevolence. The mechanism that facilitates these moral advances can be the State. Concerns over abuse of power, at least in social welfare legislation and macroeconomic policy, are not only misplaced but can be unnecessary obstacles for social progress.
Classical liberals view of legitimate State action is quite different. Physical punishment is seen as necessary to control those who freely choose to violate the rights of others. The State is needed to contain human evil and establish justice by retribution fairly imposed. Preparation and engaging in war can be necessary to protect a country from the attacks of an international aggressor. In both domestic and international crime, the person(s) who initiate violence forfeit their rights and violence can be justly used against them.
Some classical liberals such as Jefferson, Tocqueville, and Benjamin Constant believed that liberty was supported in the indigenous cultures of free countries. All of the Founders of the U.S. believed that a necessary condition for liberty was moral self-control. Religion provided the average person with the moral training and habit to prepare them to live responsibly with their fellows. Leftist liberals in contrast tend to be indifferent or hostile to traditional cultures and traditional religion and morality. Following Mill, they tend to see tradition and religion as restrictions on liberty and hindrances to greater social and political equality.
These leftist liberal theorists would not only include Mill, but T.H. Green, John Dewey, and John Rawls. These writers combine some elements of classical liberalism with socialism.
Contemporary classical liberals would include F.A. Hayek, Robert Nozick, and Milton Friedman. They are considered conservative because they are trying to conserve or preserve the original liberal tradition that can be traced back to Locke and the U.S. Founders. They clearly reject an active role for the State in achieving actual equality because such extensive and intrusive actions by the State violate individual liberty and place social planners over average people in power relationships.
With John Stuart Mill we find a bridge to another conception of liberty and equality that moves more toward socialism. Mill was highly influenced by his wife, Harriet Taylor, who was more of an egalitarian than a liberal. Here we find Mill arguing against classical notions of liberalism. Mill argued, contrary to Locke, that a just law is an encroachment on a person's liberty. He also contended that informal, non-coercive public opinion was a violation the rights of the individual as are traditional prohibitions, say on sexual morality or gender roles. In these moves to conceive of liberty in a broader way that simply overt coercion, Mill started to blur the line between private and public. Mill was also concerned about the distribution of wealth and income in ways that the Founders of the U.S. were not. Mill,at times, argued for a greater role for the State to actually achieve equality of result and actual liberty from others as opposed to a purely formal equality and liberty that the classical liberals sought.
These differences point to a fundamental divergence between classical and modern left liberals. Another such difference is the basic character of human nature. Locke and the U.S. Founders believed that humans were naturally selfish and dangerous in their exercise of power. For this reason, the U.S. Founders placed explicit restrictions on the State including a Bill of Rights, federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Jefferson's admonition that the power that the State has to do something for you also has the power to do something to you follows from the doctrine of human depravity found in Christianity.
Left liberals tend to view humans as naturally good or malleable. No one is born evil. So, with the proper education and proper social and economic environment, people can naturally cooperate and care for each other. Brutal punishment is inhumane and simply aggravates past injustices making those convicted of a crime even more alienated and victimized by the unequal social order. What is needed to avert criminal behavior is greater inclusion and benevolence. The mechanism that facilitates these moral advances can be the State. Concerns over abuse of power, at least in social welfare legislation and macroeconomic policy, are not only misplaced but can be unnecessary obstacles for social progress.
Classical liberals view of legitimate State action is quite different. Physical punishment is seen as necessary to control those who freely choose to violate the rights of others. The State is needed to contain human evil and establish justice by retribution fairly imposed. Preparation and engaging in war can be necessary to protect a country from the attacks of an international aggressor. In both domestic and international crime, the person(s) who initiate violence forfeit their rights and violence can be justly used against them.
Some classical liberals such as Jefferson, Tocqueville, and Benjamin Constant believed that liberty was supported in the indigenous cultures of free countries. All of the Founders of the U.S. believed that a necessary condition for liberty was moral self-control. Religion provided the average person with the moral training and habit to prepare them to live responsibly with their fellows. Leftist liberals in contrast tend to be indifferent or hostile to traditional cultures and traditional religion and morality. Following Mill, they tend to see tradition and religion as restrictions on liberty and hindrances to greater social and political equality.
These leftist liberal theorists would not only include Mill, but T.H. Green, John Dewey, and John Rawls. These writers combine some elements of classical liberalism with socialism.
Contemporary classical liberals would include F.A. Hayek, Robert Nozick, and Milton Friedman. They are considered conservative because they are trying to conserve or preserve the original liberal tradition that can be traced back to Locke and the U.S. Founders. They clearly reject an active role for the State in achieving actual equality because such extensive and intrusive actions by the State violate individual liberty and place social planners over average people in power relationships.
"I am a liberal, they are socialists." Milton Friedman distinguishing himself from leftist liberals.
by Tex in Tex January 18, 2008
Get the liberal mug.Liberal elitist hipster: That is so horrible that MacDonald's is everywhere in the world. They are breaking down indigenous culture and traditional folkways. Monoculture everywhere! It is sickening. (Moments later) It is so wonderful that we are breaking down backward ways of life in the American South and any other traditional culture. We want to spread the cosmopolitan ethos everywhere. I am a citizen of the world!
by Tex in Tex February 22, 2008
Get the cosmopolitan mug.United States nineteenth century general most well-known for his leadership of the Federal "Western" army in 1864-1865 during the American Civil War. He also fought against Indians in the American West after the war.
General Sherman is the originator of the modern concept of "total war." In moving through Georgia and then into the Carolinas, Sherman devised a strategy of deliberately targeting civilians for attack. He also targeted the homes and personal property of the civilians of the South who posed no military threat to Union forces. Such targeting of civilians for attack had been considered immoral at the time. The goal of such a strategy was purely utilitarian. It did not matter who morally deserved attack on this view, but instead the only question became the total number of lives saved versus lives lost as well as aggregate gains and losses in supplies and property.
During the siege of Atlanta in the summer of 1864, Sherman decided to order the bombardment of distinctly civilian areas of Atlanta with the express purpose of terrorizing the civilian population into pressuring the Confederate military and political leadership to surrender. Civilians, including slaves, were killed as intended by General Sherman and his subordinates. Confederate General John Bell Hood protested the targeted killings of non-combatants as uncivilized and inhuman. Sherman ignored the appeals by Hood to target only Confederate military positions and personnel. His infamous comment in response to such appeals was "War is Hell."
After the fall of Atlanta to Federal forces in early September 1864, the city was occupied for two months. General Sherman ordered the civilian population evacuated by force. After the evacuation of the city by civilians, General Sherman ordered the city to be burned to the ground. The civilians who were forced to leave Atlanta had to live in the woods for months with no provisions or shelter. He then proceeded through Georgia on his way to Savannah burning and destroying towns, farms, and plantations. His men looted the private property and destroyed civilians' homes leaving them destitute and without provision. After the capture of Savannah, which he spared, he continued into South Carolina where his tactics of "total war" accelerated in their savage ruthlessness culminating in the Federal army burning Columbia, South Carolina to the ground.
Such vicious tactics established the mind-set and military precedent for using civilians as pawns in a military conflict. Such tactics had previously been deemed morally unacceptable. The deliberate targeting of civilians for attack was taken up in World War II ending in the deaths of millions. The bombing of European cities by both sides of the war and Japanese cities by the U.S. as well as attacks on civilians in China, the Philippines, and Korea by Japan were consistent with and encouraged by Sherman's precedent. The logic of saving lives in the long-run by these tactics seems to have been refuted by history.
Modern terrorism also follows the same basic strategy of targeting helpless non-combatants for attack in order to terrorize the remaining citizens into capitulation.
The contemporary American practice of only targeting military personnel for deliberate attack reverses the policy of the American government instituted by General Sherman in Atlanta in 1864. The policy of killing sufficient numbers of civilians and destroying their homes to force surrender has been recognized as the mark of only the most barbarous kind of terrorist, such as those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks.
General Sherman is the originator of the modern concept of "total war." In moving through Georgia and then into the Carolinas, Sherman devised a strategy of deliberately targeting civilians for attack. He also targeted the homes and personal property of the civilians of the South who posed no military threat to Union forces. Such targeting of civilians for attack had been considered immoral at the time. The goal of such a strategy was purely utilitarian. It did not matter who morally deserved attack on this view, but instead the only question became the total number of lives saved versus lives lost as well as aggregate gains and losses in supplies and property.
During the siege of Atlanta in the summer of 1864, Sherman decided to order the bombardment of distinctly civilian areas of Atlanta with the express purpose of terrorizing the civilian population into pressuring the Confederate military and political leadership to surrender. Civilians, including slaves, were killed as intended by General Sherman and his subordinates. Confederate General John Bell Hood protested the targeted killings of non-combatants as uncivilized and inhuman. Sherman ignored the appeals by Hood to target only Confederate military positions and personnel. His infamous comment in response to such appeals was "War is Hell."
After the fall of Atlanta to Federal forces in early September 1864, the city was occupied for two months. General Sherman ordered the civilian population evacuated by force. After the evacuation of the city by civilians, General Sherman ordered the city to be burned to the ground. The civilians who were forced to leave Atlanta had to live in the woods for months with no provisions or shelter. He then proceeded through Georgia on his way to Savannah burning and destroying towns, farms, and plantations. His men looted the private property and destroyed civilians' homes leaving them destitute and without provision. After the capture of Savannah, which he spared, he continued into South Carolina where his tactics of "total war" accelerated in their savage ruthlessness culminating in the Federal army burning Columbia, South Carolina to the ground.
Such vicious tactics established the mind-set and military precedent for using civilians as pawns in a military conflict. Such tactics had previously been deemed morally unacceptable. The deliberate targeting of civilians for attack was taken up in World War II ending in the deaths of millions. The bombing of European cities by both sides of the war and Japanese cities by the U.S. as well as attacks on civilians in China, the Philippines, and Korea by Japan were consistent with and encouraged by Sherman's precedent. The logic of saving lives in the long-run by these tactics seems to have been refuted by history.
Modern terrorism also follows the same basic strategy of targeting helpless non-combatants for attack in order to terrorize the remaining citizens into capitulation.
The contemporary American practice of only targeting military personnel for deliberate attack reverses the policy of the American government instituted by General Sherman in Atlanta in 1864. The policy of killing sufficient numbers of civilians and destroying their homes to force surrender has been recognized as the mark of only the most barbarous kind of terrorist, such as those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks.
General William T. Sherman meeting Yasser Arafat in Hell: "Good job killing those innocent people...You got what you wanted from the killings...I did the same in Atlanta in 1864."
by Tex in Tex February 02, 2008
Get the General William T. Sherman mug.A term coined by Austrian economist Murray Rothbard to describe people who call themselves libertarians defining liberty as moral license (see libertine). They are former Marxists, contemporary liberals, practicing drug-users, homosexuals, self-appointed members of the avant-garde, haters of tradition, anti-religious (especially anti-Christian) atheists, alienated teens and young adults, politically correct leftists, humanitarians who see the established culture and morality as equally or more threatening than an expansive government. They also reject the classical liberalism that the United States of America is founded upon. In fact, many of these people have not read or do not care to read the writings of the Founders of the United States or the philosophers who influenced them. If they do appeal to the Founders, they cite quotes taken out of context to support their leftist views. They also care little for community, culture, or history.
These "libertarians" have taken on the name to justify a nihilistic view of the world, where restraint of any kind is removed so that they can indulge their appetites. Many modal libertarians have an appreciation of the free market because they realize the market can supply their drugs, pornography, and prostitutes more effectively. They confirm the fears expressed by Daniel Bell of the cultural contradictions of capitalism where increased levels of wealth produced by capitalism undermine the traditional values based on self-restraint that make capitalism successful. The same ethic of self-indulgence explains their support for abortion on demand and unrestricted euthanasia. The logic here is to kill anyone who cannot keep up and is deemed to have an inferior "quality of life."
Former *Reason* magazine editor, Nick Gillespie, personifies this anti-social trend. He praises as "Heroes of Freedom" Madonna, Dennis Rodman, Larry Flynt, and William Burroughs alongside such true heroes as Milton Friedman and Barry Goldwater. Gillespie epitomizes this brand of libertarianism by posing as the angry young man hipster too cool for the rest of us poor unimaginative slobs.
These so-called libertarians are more interested in civil liberties that undercut law enforcement not because of fear of an abuse of power but because of their rejection of the imposition of pain including just punishment. Instead, they unrealistically believe that if all people are treated as equals and given opportunity to get rich in the market, then there would be no crime.
Although more traditional or paleo-libertarians such as Ron Paul are strict constitutionalists, modal libertarians are all in favor of using judicial activism to further their social goals of removing barriers to self-destructive behavior or placing barriers in the way of law enforcement and national security without regard to precedent or the text of the Constitution.
These bits of meliorism go hand in hand with their non-interventionism in foreign policy. Instead of opposing foreign wars to protect the lives and traditions of citizens of their own country, they believe that if wealth and opportunity can be expanded, then people would live harmoniously together in a peaceful cosmopolitan world. The basic assumptions about human nature and the human condition only differs from the leftist internationalist by replacing a super-statist/socialist order with a super market capitalist order that would transcend the nation state and particular local cultures. The same leftist vision is simply implemented by a different strategy. This line of thinking explains their support of mass immigration. It also explains why one does not hear these libertarians defend freedom of association.
Modal libertarians disdain tradition or any sense of social stability. They relish change for the sake of change. They crave novelty and destruction of anything that they have become bored with. Virginia Postrel, now writing for the *New York Times*, is a prime example of this love of frenetic activity. She misquotes Hayek on the nature of change as a thorough-going, radical process that countenances no constancy or commitment.
Modal libertarianism could be called left libertarianism. There is a variation of libertarianism which stresses voluntary collectivist social and economic arrangements that are still respectful of the right to private property and non-intervention by the State. These libertarians argue for people to choose to pool private property and live communally in various frameworks. This is not modal libertarianism. This type of leftist libertarianism is still consistent with the more traditional libertarian framework because each individual in such communities chooses to participate. There is a long history of such communities in the United States. Modal libertarians are more interested in re-shaping the world to fit their mold and defining the results as achieving freedom. Modal libertarians seem to slip on the term, 'liberty,' moving from what Issiah Berlin called "negative liberty" to "positive liberty." John Stuart Mill fell into this confusion in his writing as he tried to blend liberalism with egalitarianism. Mill is the cross-over figure from classical to modern liberalism. Something similar is going on with modal libertarians.
A lot of people calling themselves libertarians on the internet are teen-agers and young adults who are simply stuck in a mindless rebellion against all authority. Modal libertarians tap into this unrelenting, destructive rebellion in many young people who have been neglected or mistreated by self-absorbed parents. Ayn Rand's writings look especially inviting to these folks.
Even though some of the language and the policy positions cohere with those of Locke, Jefferson, Montesquieu, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, et al., the meanings they pour into the terms and phrases used by traditional libertarians and classical liberals are completely different. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has departed from their earlier candidates such as John Hospers, Roger MacBride, and Ron Paul and have moved to this liberal/leftist vision. We are now witnessing Bob Barr flip-flopping all over himself to appease these nihilists who have taken over the mantle of libertarianism.
These "libertarians" have taken on the name to justify a nihilistic view of the world, where restraint of any kind is removed so that they can indulge their appetites. Many modal libertarians have an appreciation of the free market because they realize the market can supply their drugs, pornography, and prostitutes more effectively. They confirm the fears expressed by Daniel Bell of the cultural contradictions of capitalism where increased levels of wealth produced by capitalism undermine the traditional values based on self-restraint that make capitalism successful. The same ethic of self-indulgence explains their support for abortion on demand and unrestricted euthanasia. The logic here is to kill anyone who cannot keep up and is deemed to have an inferior "quality of life."
Former *Reason* magazine editor, Nick Gillespie, personifies this anti-social trend. He praises as "Heroes of Freedom" Madonna, Dennis Rodman, Larry Flynt, and William Burroughs alongside such true heroes as Milton Friedman and Barry Goldwater. Gillespie epitomizes this brand of libertarianism by posing as the angry young man hipster too cool for the rest of us poor unimaginative slobs.
These so-called libertarians are more interested in civil liberties that undercut law enforcement not because of fear of an abuse of power but because of their rejection of the imposition of pain including just punishment. Instead, they unrealistically believe that if all people are treated as equals and given opportunity to get rich in the market, then there would be no crime.
Although more traditional or paleo-libertarians such as Ron Paul are strict constitutionalists, modal libertarians are all in favor of using judicial activism to further their social goals of removing barriers to self-destructive behavior or placing barriers in the way of law enforcement and national security without regard to precedent or the text of the Constitution.
These bits of meliorism go hand in hand with their non-interventionism in foreign policy. Instead of opposing foreign wars to protect the lives and traditions of citizens of their own country, they believe that if wealth and opportunity can be expanded, then people would live harmoniously together in a peaceful cosmopolitan world. The basic assumptions about human nature and the human condition only differs from the leftist internationalist by replacing a super-statist/socialist order with a super market capitalist order that would transcend the nation state and particular local cultures. The same leftist vision is simply implemented by a different strategy. This line of thinking explains their support of mass immigration. It also explains why one does not hear these libertarians defend freedom of association.
Modal libertarians disdain tradition or any sense of social stability. They relish change for the sake of change. They crave novelty and destruction of anything that they have become bored with. Virginia Postrel, now writing for the *New York Times*, is a prime example of this love of frenetic activity. She misquotes Hayek on the nature of change as a thorough-going, radical process that countenances no constancy or commitment.
Modal libertarianism could be called left libertarianism. There is a variation of libertarianism which stresses voluntary collectivist social and economic arrangements that are still respectful of the right to private property and non-intervention by the State. These libertarians argue for people to choose to pool private property and live communally in various frameworks. This is not modal libertarianism. This type of leftist libertarianism is still consistent with the more traditional libertarian framework because each individual in such communities chooses to participate. There is a long history of such communities in the United States. Modal libertarians are more interested in re-shaping the world to fit their mold and defining the results as achieving freedom. Modal libertarians seem to slip on the term, 'liberty,' moving from what Issiah Berlin called "negative liberty" to "positive liberty." John Stuart Mill fell into this confusion in his writing as he tried to blend liberalism with egalitarianism. Mill is the cross-over figure from classical to modern liberalism. Something similar is going on with modal libertarians.
A lot of people calling themselves libertarians on the internet are teen-agers and young adults who are simply stuck in a mindless rebellion against all authority. Modal libertarians tap into this unrelenting, destructive rebellion in many young people who have been neglected or mistreated by self-absorbed parents. Ayn Rand's writings look especially inviting to these folks.
Even though some of the language and the policy positions cohere with those of Locke, Jefferson, Montesquieu, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, et al., the meanings they pour into the terms and phrases used by traditional libertarians and classical liberals are completely different. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has departed from their earlier candidates such as John Hospers, Roger MacBride, and Ron Paul and have moved to this liberal/leftist vision. We are now witnessing Bob Barr flip-flopping all over himself to appease these nihilists who have taken over the mantle of libertarianism.
Traditionalist libertarian: "I am looking at the Libertarian Party platform and see mostly a leftist agenda. What is going on here?"
Modal libertarian: "Yes, we modal libertarians have moved away from that rightist repressive model of liberty to true liberty. The real enemy of the people is not the State so much as it is traditional morality, bigotry, Christianity, and nationalism. Conservatives are the real enemy now."
Modal libertarian: "Yes, we modal libertarians have moved away from that rightist repressive model of liberty to true liberty. The real enemy of the people is not the State so much as it is traditional morality, bigotry, Christianity, and nationalism. Conservatives are the real enemy now."
by Tex in Tex June 17, 2008
Get the modal libertarians mug.