Libertarianism: slander and rebuttal

Last week I received a RightOn newsletter from an e-friend. It was a guest rant from one J.B. Williams on “Liberal-tarians.”

The rant does not appear to be archived, so I am reproducing it below. Further down is my reply. And do follow the link to Mr. Williams site.

First, let me be clear I do not find libertarians beyond reproach. Chuck, the owner of the RightOn site has forwarded proof to me of counterproductive, dishonest, and unethical conduct by local libertarians. For another example, the late R.W. Bradford researched and published in his magazine Liberty an expose of the conduct of the Harry Browne organization, which took over the Libertarian Party and left it with a crippling debt load and lower-than-ever vote totals.

And to be fair I’d have to mention that Bradford himself on more than one occasion edited article submissions he evidently disagreed with to make a totally different point than the author intended.

In short, there are valid criticisms of libertarians and libertarianism. This is not one of them, and below I go into some detail why.

Welcome to the RiteOn Newsletter
Sunday, May 23, 2010

T.E.A. Parties, Liberal-tarians and What Kind of Change?

RiteOn apologizes for the length of this article but, in our judgment, it contains important information and a point of view that is all-important to the success of the Tea Party movement. If you are an independent conservative and a supporter of one or more Tea Party
organizations, PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE…. Ed
—————-
Constitutional conservatives and liberal-tarians have almost nothing in common

Do Liberal-tarians threaten the Conservative Resurgence?
By JB Williams Friday, May 21, 2010

The T.E.A. Party began as a simple but firm message from millions of average American citizens, “TaxedEnough Already…”-which is to say, the runaway federal government must rein itself in or the people will begin to send spend-n-tax politicians out to pasture.But over the last year, the movement has been morphed into several very different agendas, most of them operating at odds with each
other. Although the different factions can work together to dismantle the existing political power structure, working together towards building a new viable power structure is something which remains somewhat illusive. (Sic)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So even I can find statements by liberal-tarians which I agree with, such as this statement from Ron Paul-“There is nothing wrong with describing Conservatism as protecting the Constitution, protecting all things that limit government. Government is the enemy of liberty. Government should be very restrained.”

That might be the most valid statement Ron Paul has ever made, and he has regularly identified the conservative movement as the true defender of freedom and liberty throughout American history, as in this statement- “To me, to be a conservative means to conserve the good parts of America and to conserve our Constitution.”

I agree wholeheartedly with these statements by Paul. But then there has been another Ron Paul from time to time, a liberal-tarian Ron Paul which I disagree with and find someone dangerous. “Another term for preventive war is aggressive war”
“Have you noticed the debt is exploding? And it’s not all because of Medicare.”
“I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas.”
“I have never met anyone who did not support our troops.”

As any national security expert will tell you, the best way to avoid war on U.S. soil is to address threats towards the U.S. before they reach U.S. soil. The best defense is very often a good offense, which means, the leftist notion of waiting to be attacked before defending our nation is a suicide mission.

While Medicare alone is not the only reason for an exploding national debt, social spending overall, which now accounts for more than 60% of the federal budget, certainly is the primary problem. The quest for “social justice” is the primary reason for our current financial calamity. To ignore that is to cover up reality. Minding our own business abroad is akin to watching a lady being viciously attacked in the supermarket parking lot, and deciding it is none of our business. Defending our own personal freedom and liberty has always required defending the freedom and liberty of others.

And yes, Ron Paul has met people who don’t support our troops. Much of his 2008 presidential campaign was funded by Code Pink and MoveOn.org anti-war protesters who like nothing about our troops.

The fact is – constitutional conservatives and liberal-tarians have almost nothing in common. Yet both are wrestling for control of America’s conservative party, the GOP, via the Tea Party.

Many of the Tea Party organizations are supporting liberal-tarian candidates in the GOP primaries, like Rand Paul in Kentucky. If the vast majority of Tea Party members are indeed “constitutional conservatives,” why are they supporting liberal-tarian candidates who are largely aligned with leftist progressive’s, issue-by-issue?

Leftist Democrats are strategically using the most extreme elements within the Tea Party movement to define the entire conservative patriot resurgence as a bunch of “fringe nuts.”

Only hours after winning the GOP primary in Kentucky, Rand Paul finds himself under attack for some of the more extreme sounding statements in his closet.

The DNC has gone so far as to write and distribute a strategy paper on how to neutralize the conservative resurgence by promoting liberal-tarian extremists in the GOP primaries, giving “mainstream” Democrats so-called “extremists” to run against in the general election come fall.

Still, many average patriots remain unaware of the official policy positions behind the effort to build a liberal-tarian powerbase within the GOP.

Official Liberal-tarian Issue Positions
Pro Abortion Rights
Pro Gay Rights
Pro Illicit Drug and Prostitution
Pro Illegal Immigration and Amnesty
Anti Strong National Defense
Isolationist Security and Economic policies
Pro Freedom from Religion
Pro Civil Rights for known Terrorists
Pro Criminalizing Acts of War

For those who doubt my assertions, the full official liberal-tarian platform and issue statement is available at the Libertarian Party web site. If constitutional conservatives take time to fully inform themselves of the real liberal-tarian agenda, they will not support liberal-tarian candidates.

Everyone from Ron Paul to Nancy Pelosi claims the title of “constitutional patriot” today. If nothing else, the Tea Party has taught every politician the proper campaign talking points for the upcoming election cycles. True constitutional conservatives are going to have to separate real constitutional conservatives from the
pretenders in order to advance the conservative resurgence needed to save this nation from certain ruin.

Not all who claim the name patriot are true patriots.

Liberal-tarians have perfected the art of nuanced policy positions in an almost John Kerryesque way.
They are both pro life and pro abortion rights
They are pro-national defense and anti-security
They are pro-national sovereignty and pro open borders
They are anti-social spending but pro-social depravity
And just like all other progressives, they pander for illegal alien
votes and Puerto Rico statehood

Again, I can go on and on with this list, but at the end of the day, the liberal-tarian gray area of nuanced nonsense is actually ideologically aligned with the leftist progressive movement, not the constitutional conservative resurgence. There are exceptions to every rule, but even in the case of liberal-tarians, the rule remains the standard.

The only place where liberal-tarians share common ground with conservatives is the area of taxation. Both want lower taxes and less intrusive government. But only conservatives seem to understand that liberal social policies always result in liberal social spending. So even here, the two are not really on the same team.

Who is the T.E.A. Party?

According to an in-depth CBS/New York Times poll taken mid-April 2010, the following information rings true about T.E.A. Party folks… 94% are dissatisfied and even “angry” at the current federal government’s direction with 92% saying the country is headed in the wrong direction 88% disapprove of the Obama Administration-96% disapprove of the Democrat controlled congress
91% disagree with current economic policies
93% disagree with current Health Care policies
91% oppose the increasing deficit spending
84% dislike and distrust Barack Obama specifically-73% say Obama doesn’t understand the problems-75% say he does not share their American principles and values
92% say Obama is forcing the country deeper into socialism
94% say that congress does not deserve re-election
66% say Sarah Palin is the leader of the movement-59% say Glenn Beck is the leader
But Palin supports John McCain who earns only 35% – and Beck likes Ron Paul who earns only 28% TP support

Clearly, T.E.A. Party folks plan to force a change of direction in this country. However, what kinds of change remain unclear…

What Change?

In 2006 and 2008, American voters were foolish enough to vote for “change” without stopping to ask what kinds of “change” leftists around the globe had in mind for Americans. If we are foolish enough to do it again in 2010, we will likely never recognize this country again for generations.

Progressives had socialism in mind and it only took a few weeks or months after the election to figure that out. Too bad we didn’t take a few minutes to figure it out before the election.

Before T.E.A. Party folks get too excited about forcing “change” in 2010, they had better step back for a moment and very carefully define what kinds of change they have in mind.

We have no “broken immigration system.” We have a good immigration system backed by good immigration laws, but a very bad record of enforcement. If patriots want that to “change,” they cannot support leftists or liberal-tarian progressives, both of whom support “immigration reform” that essentially does away with legal immigration and rewards illegal migration.

Unless patriots want Puerto Ricans helping vote on the policies of the continental USA, they had better not support leftists or liberal-tarian progressives, both of whom are pandering for the Puerto Rican vote via statehood for Puerto Rico.

Neither leftist nor liberal-tarian progressives think we are in the middle of a global war with Islamic terrorism and neither wants to treat terrorism like an act of war, preferring US civil rights and criminal courts for known terrorists, while questioning the honor and tactics of real US heroes serving in the US Military.

Both leftists and liberal-tarians want to do away with a free-market economic system that both feel is unfair to many citizens and replace it with their version of a new economic system, complete with new currency and more government intrusions.

To cut taxes, you must first cut spending and in a nation with more than 60% of its federal budget tied up in social spending, you had better curb the social habits that cause social ills and result in
social spending, or you can’t do any of it. Leftists and liberal-tarians overlook this little gem of reality.

My point is this…
Change, YES! But just any kind of change, NO!

Constitutional conservatism is the foundation that made the USA the greatest nation on earth. No nuanced or pretender platform can compare and only true constitutional conservatives will put constitutionally conservative principles and values back at the helm of this nation.

This time, before you jump at the blind offer of “change,” stop for a moment and ask what kind of change. I have come to the conclusion that the most significant difference between true constitutional
conservatives and liberal-tarians is the conservative agenda of saving a nation and a liberal-tarian agenda of exploiting current conditions for benefit of building a liberal-tarian movement, no matter the cost for our nation.

In the end, it’s one thing to remove a RINO from office. It’s a whole different thing to put the right person in their place. It requires more than unity…it requires clarity of purpose.
—————————-
JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A
no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and
American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries
around the world. JB Williams’ website is jb-williams.com/

Chuck’s disclaimer.

************************
PLEASE NOTE: RiteOn.org makes no representations or warranties of any
kind as to the fitness of content for any purpose or use whatsoever.
We present information and opinion for the public’s interest only.
Our capacity to research the validity and/or content of material is
limited, therefore, Guest Editor and other material, aside from minor
editing, is published as received and readers should be aware of
this. Material may or may not not agree with our views, though we try
within our means to present timely commentary that we consider to be
of value to others. Obviously, our success in this regard depends on
each individual’s perspective. We do not act on behalf of, or
represent in any way, any candidate, group, political party or other
entity of any kind. We unilaterally and unconditionally state that we
publish without malicious or harmful intent and take whatever
measures that are within our means to be accurate and truthful with
all content we publish. We claim no responsibility of any kind for
any content originated or used in any way, authorized or not
authorized, by guest editor writers, sources or any other person/s or
entity/ies.

My reply:

Stephen Browne is a professional writer and journalist, who is currently between jobs as he struggles to become more computer literate. Between 1991 and 2004 he lived and worked in Eastern Europe and the Middle East after the collapse of the Soviet Empire. In 1997 he was elected an Honorary Member of the Yugoslav Movement for the Protection of Human Rights for his work with Serbian dissidents and is the founder of the Liberty English Camps, which teach the principles of political liberty and free markets through Englishlanguage instruction in several post-communist countries and Africa. While sojourning he has been kicked with honest-to-God jackboots and beaten with real rubber truncheons. (They’re not just rubber they have a steel rod inside, just in case you’re curious.)

Reply to J.B. Williams

by Stephen Browne

In a recent article Mr. J.B. Williams asks the question “Do Liberal-tarians threaten the Conservative Resurgence?” – and answers in the affirmative.

In his tone he comes off, dare I say? a tad leftist. Williams apparently thinks the way to forge a coalition to beat back the current tsunami of statism, is to conduct Stalinesque purges of those who hew not to his party line. His article is a mixture of valid criticism, invalid generalizations, and outright falsehoods.

He begins by coining a childish neologism “Liberal-tarians,” a tactic the Institute for Propaganda Analysis gave the highly technical term, “name-calling.” Perhaps he learned this lesson from leftist idiot-ologs who coined the term “conservo-tards” to achieve the same effect. He then consistently refers to libertarians as “they” throughout. As if one could characterize an extremely broad and diverse intellectual trend with a few short brush strokes – a problem all conservatives should be familiar with from being on the receiving end of this kind of stereotyping.

To elaborate all of the misconceptions and outright falsehoods would take far more space than my host, or your patience, is likely to grant. But shall we fisk this monstrosity a bit?

“But then there has been another Ron Paul from time to time, a liberal-tarian Ron Paul which I disagree with and find someone dangerous.
“Another term for preventive war is aggressive war”
“Have you noticed the debt is exploding? And it’s not all because of
Medicare.”
“I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us
peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited
government, and minding our own business overseas.” “

I also disagree with Paul, and elaborated at length in an article published in last month’s Dakota Beacon, ‘Isolationism, the Problem that Divides Conservatives,’ archived below.

I will also point out that this wrong-headed (in my opinion) approach to foreign policy is not shared by all libertarians but is gospel among the so-called paleo-conservatives, and pretty well describes the opinion of the late conservative icon Paul Harvey. See the Yahoo discussion site ‘Fight for Liberty’ for the opinions of libertarian “hawks.” And note surveys conducted by libertarian publications consistently show the publicly -visible libertarian leadership is not representative of the rank-and-file on this issue.

“The quest for “social justice” is the primary reason for our current financial calamity. To ignore that is to cover up reality. Minding our own business abroad is akin to watching a lady being viciously attacked in the supermarket parking lot, and deciding it is none of our business. Defending our own personal freedom and liberty has always required defending the freedom and liberty of others.”

Agree.

“Only hours after winning the GOP primary in Kentucky, Rand Paul finds himself under attack for some of the more extreme sounding statements in his closet.”

Williams cleverly fails to mention the “extreme sounding statement” Paul was under attack for: the issue of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which “outlaws discrimination” by taking away the right of property owners to discriminate against customers based on race.

This impacts the issue of victimless crimes, which sends Williams up the wall and makes almost everybody uncomfortable. At issue is the right of people to make foolish or immoral choices provided they
directly affect only the individual. (The problem of who they affect is a matter of much argument. Suffice it to say, the libertarian position is if you indulge in intoxicants you are affecting yourself. If you get behind the wheel of a car – that’s a different story. We don’t buy that hurting the feelings of those who care about you is the legitimate concern of the law – that’s a leftist notion.)

In any case, in today’s climate it takes a great deal of personal courage to defend a bigot’s right to dispose of his own property as he wishes. Whatever else I think of Rand Paul, my hat’s off to him on this one.

Your belief in freedom is tested by how far you are willing to extend it to people you despise.

On Williams web site, right at the top, is this:

“

I have come to believe that the one flaw in our framers design is our freedom to destroy ourselves.

It may have been a mistake to ask average people (who don’t have the time, the energy, the inclination, the selflessness, the moral foundation or the good sense to run their own lives), to run the greatest nation on earth.” (Emphasis his.)

In other words, the average person can’t be trusted to make the “right” choices and must be led by a wise and moral elite – which evidently includes himself. (Who’d have guessed?) How is this different from Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama’s philosophy of government paternalism, save for the specific behaviors they think
are destructive?

G.K. Chesterton defined the libertarian position best, “The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.”

Williams describes the following “Official Liberal-tarian Issue Positions,” and cites the Libertarian Party website. To being with, the LP is one of a number of libertarian organizations, one which has been declining in membership and vote totals for some years, largely for hewing to the foreign policy positions criticized herein. Most self-identified libertarians don’t belong to any organization.

One-by-one William’s charges are:

Pro Abortion Rights: not shared by all libertarians. Ron Paul is a conspicuous example of an anti-abortion libertarian for example. And those who think it’s an immoral choice may not want it made a matter of law in all circumstances.

Pro Gay Rights: A misstatement. The libertarian position is, there are no fill-in-the-blank “rights.” There are only human rights. If you want to cite gays in the military as a specific, I’d refer you to the late Barry Goldwater’s op-ed, “You don’t have to be straight to die for your country – you just have to shoot straight.”

I will add this: I personally find aggressive, public, in-your-face, gays highly offensive. I feel the same way about loudmouth heterosexuals who like to boast about their conquests. But I do not think my offended sensibilities should be the law of the land. In either case they may merit a punch in the nose, not an act of congress.

Pro Illicit Drug and Prostitution: A deliberate mischaracterization. “Pro” has nothing to do with the issue, see the above Chesterton quote. And decriminalization of drugs is also a position supported by a great many conservatives such as the late William F. Buckley, and organizations such as LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.) The practical argument is not that drugs or alcohol are good for you, but that the process costs of prohibition are higher than any possible social benefit. Among other things, enforcement of prohibition necessarily creates those massive bureaucracies and egregious violations of civil liberties conservatives and libertarians hate.

Pro Illegal Immigration and Amnesty: Nope, libertarians are divided on the issue of open borders. A quote from one libertarian author (moi) in a published op-ed, “Does anyone else see how seriously weird it is that we’re even having this discussion? Every nation on earth takes their right to control their borders as a given. It’s pretty much what defines a nation.”

Anti Strong National Defense: This charge is loaded. There is a lot of argument in conservative/libertarian circles about what constitutes “strong” national defense. Though critics of foreign interventions like to point out that spreading limited military resources too thin weakens a country, and no country can maintain a strong military without a strong (i.e. free-market) economy.

Isolationist Security and Economic policies: Isolationist: ditto. See above. Economic: a falsehood. Libertarians are mostly free-traders who like to cite the 19th century French free-market economists, “If goods don’t cross borders – armies will.” (I myself have reservations about that one, since Tom Clancy pointed out that in 1939 Germany’s biggest trading parter – was France.)

Pro Freedom from Religion: Almost meaningless. Do you mean freedom to be an atheist or agnostic? Or perhaps not to have an established state church? Heavens to Betsy surely not! Me, I’m just dying to be hauled up before the Inquisition, or the Board of Presbyters, to have my (considerable) sins denounced before the congregation.

If you mean joining idiot lawsuits against religious symbols on public property, I don’t know any libertarians who get worked up about that. There may be some, I’ve just never run into them. And to be fair, it’s hard to get worked up over, say, the bronze doors on the Library of Congress, with their images of all the gods of writing from classical and non-Western mythology.

Pro Civil Rights for known Terrorists and Pro Criminalizing Acts of War: Not except for a delusional minority. You can find them hanging out with the paleo-conservatives over at antiwar.com.

Williams repeats many of the charges in a shorter list below this, accusing libertarians of being “John Kerryesque.” A straw man argument. He takes areas where libertarians – like self-described conservatives, disagree, ascribes all of the positions to a non-existent “they,” and triumphantly cries “they” are self-contradictory.

They are both pro life and pro abortion rights: Again, “they” disagree. Many, such as myself, are mired in the mushy middle. (Not much of a problem with the first trimester, beginning to worry in the second, and seriously wondering about the difference between a late-term abortion and a preemie saved by heroic medical efforts. And if some propagandist hadn’t invented the lying term “partial-birth abortion” we wouldn’t be having an argument about it. A “partial-birth abortion” is murdering a baby – the difference is literally a few minutes.)

They are anti-social spending but pro-social depravity: The first is correct, the second is a slander. To say that something is not properly a matter for law is NOT the same thing as saying it is good or desirable. And note one thing, only a totalitarian who believes “everything not forbidden should be compulsory” would say it is.

And just like all other progressives, they pander for illegal alien votes and Puerto Rico statehood: A falsehood. Where libertarians get nutty about statehood, they favor devolution and secession, not addition.

Neither leftist nor liberal-tarian progressives think we are in the middle of a global war with Islamic terrorism… Nope, this libertarian has written extensively on Islamic jihadism – and has lived in the Middle East. There is disagreement among libertarians, but look at Objectivists websites and the aforementioned Fight for Liberty discussion group and you’ll find strong support for the war against global jihad.

Both leftists and liberal-tarians want to do away with a free-market economic system that both feel is unfair to many citizens and replace it with their version of a new economic system, complete with new currency and more government intrusions: This cannot be a misunderstanding. It is a complete and utter falsehood. Libertarians are the strongest defenders of free-market capitalism there are, far beyond what any conservatives are comfortable with.

“To cut taxes, you must first cut spending and in a nation with more than 60% of its federal budget tied up in social spending, you had better curb the social habits that cause social ills and result in
social spending, or you can’t do any of it. Leftists and liberal-tarians overlook this little gem of reality.”

Really? And exactly how are you going to do this “curbing” without erecting massive bureaucracies staffed by legions of “experts”? And, isn’t this the same kind of social engineering so beloved of leftists? The only difference I can see is what he considers the invidious “social habits.”

How’s this for an alternative? Cease protecting people from the consequences of their own actions. Doesn’t cost a dime of taxpayer money.

“The only result of protecting men from their own folly, is to fill the world with fools.” – Herbert Spencer.

There is much to criticize about libertarians and libertarianism, as there is about any philosophy or movement, nobody has a monopoly on wisdom. I have done a fair amount of that criticism myself.

Libertarianism favors continuing, rather than halting the American Experiment of pushing the envelope of liberty to the maximum extent consistent with a reasonable degree of civil order. Since the Constitution was ratified we’ve been on unknown territory, boldly going “where no one has gone before” with few historical examples to guide us.

But this is not criticism, this is an argument for abandoning the whole enterprise of republican liberty.

In sum, it is obvious Mr. Williams has no use for libertarians. What he betrays in almost every line is, he is no conservative either. He is a totalitarian elitist, different from leftists only in the specific areas of your life he wishes to be in charge of. And not much of a difference at that. Williams has a lot in common with Hillary Clinton, who like many leftists is in many ways a notorious prude in spite of being married to a notorious libertine.

Confronted with a common enemy who is now on the ascendant, libertarians and conservatives of all stripes need each other to rally around the basic issue of combating the runaway growth of government, because we are too weak without each other. That is the grim reality.

What we don’t need are totalitarians who’d be more comfortable in a Red-Brown alliance than among those of us determined to live and die free men.