True Libertarianism and Its Enemies
"O brave new world that has such people in't." -- Shakespeare, The Tempest
This post extends “The Libertarian-Conservative Divide”, which I dashed off when something reminded me of the essential difference between the two political philosophies.
There is true libertarianism and there is pseudo-libertarianism. The former is really a kind of conservatism, which is why I call it Burkean libertarianism. The latter — which is the kind of “libertarianism” much in evidence on the internet — rests on the Nirvana fallacy and posits dangerously false ideals.
True libertarianism requires the general observance of socially evolved norms because those norms evidence and sustain the mutual trust, respect, and forbearance that — taken together — foster willing, peaceful coexistence. That, in turn, fosters beneficially cooperative behavior. (If there is a better description of liberty, I have yet to read it.)
Given the general observance of socially evolved norms, government’s role is the minimal one of protecting the populace from domestic and foreign predators, both actively and through the swift and certain enactment of retribution as a deterrent to future abuses. In this respect, true libertarianism resembles a kind of “libertarianism” known as minarchism, except that minarchists emhasize minimal government and do not acknowledge the need for socially evolved norms.
The core of pseudo-libertarianism is the impossible dream of living without restraints, either those imposed by government or the social norms that must be observed in order to live in peaceful coexistence with other human beings. In that respect, pseudo-libertarians are aligned with leftists, who — intera alia — wish to “cancel” norms that they find offensive.
Human beings, ineluctably tribal creatures that they are, find the basis for mutual trust, respect, and forbearance in a common culture (mores) that evolved by being tested in the acid of use.* This is not to be found in the discord of clashing cultures that pseudo-libertarians promote, sometimes (paradoxically) through state action. The left, of course, resorts reflexively to state action (and private, state-condoned and encouraged action) in its zeal to shatter the common culture and to force its social and economic preferences upon the populace.
Pseudo-libertarians and leftists do not understand (or care) that the long evolution of rules of conduct by human beings who must coexist might just be superior to the rules that they arbitrarily impose (or would if they could). Pseudo-libertarians and leftists obviously believe in the possibility of separating the warp and woof of the social fabric — the common culture — without causing the its disintegration.
When the common culture disintegrates there is an open field for government to dictate the terms on which a people coexist. This necessarily alienates large segments of the populace from one another.
What is worse is that cultural disintegration results in a rising tide of social acrimony and violence. The result is political polarization, something like an epidemic of mass murder, and the coarsening of behavior generally.
Cultural disintegration is the key to what has been happening to America for a long time and in earnest since the early 1960s. Cultural disintegration is a mild term to apply to outrages like these:
authorization, by the U.S. Supreme Court, to kill unborn children
abandonment of restraint in the use of profanity, violence, and sexualtiy in the various modes of “entertainment”, with subtantial encouragement by the Court
wide acceptance and inculcation of the patent myth (patent to anyone who has eyes and ears and half a brain) that the plight of blacks today is entirely the fault of America’s “racist” past
vast expansion of the welfare state, to the detriment of self-reliance (and economic vitality)
encouragement of murder, mayhem, and lessser crimes by “justice reform” and similar movements
encouragement of illegal immigration, which brings crime and disruption to the communities affected directly by it
suppression — through censorship, loss of jobs, boycotts, etc. — of persons and businesses who openly resist such outrages.
Thus have long-standing norms been widely rejected and reversed by a cabal whose leaders and members are drawn from politics, the political bureaucracy, the academy, the legal profession, public “education”, corporate management (prominently but not exclusively Big Tech), and the media (including “entertainment”). The result is a deep chasm between Americans who still hew to traditional norms, or would like to, and the “elites” who have rejected many of those norms.
There is no liberty for adherents of traditional norms when they cannot live as they would choose to live and speak as they would choose to speak. The adherents of traditional norms have become strangers in a strange land. They must tread carefully to avoid ostracism, legal and financial sanctions, and verbal and physical assault. Not that the left-aligned media give any attention to the parlous condition of social conservatives, who are (as Russians would say) “the main enemy” of the emerging dystopia.
* I owe “tested in the acid of use” to Philip M. Morse and George E. Kimball’s Methods of Operations Research, at page 10:
Operations research done separately from an administrator in charge of operations becomes an empty exercise. To be valuable it must be toughened by the repeated impact of hard operational facts and pressing day-by-day demands, and its scale of values must be repeatedly tested in the acid of use. Otherwise it may be philosophy, but it is hardly science.