I believe I mentioned having seen a discussion of Libertarianism on Stossel the other day. It was quite enlightening.
What I found most interesting was how people came to different conclusions using the same "Libertarian" principles.
Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about Natural Rights, that arise from our humanness, or from "Nature's God"...as you prefer, rights that government does not confer, thus may not may take away. They are "unalienable rights".
Libertarians all believe in the primacy of the individual. They believe in the individual's right to Life, Liberty and Property.
And while that sounds simple, it can cause a certain tension among them (the principles, not the people) when applying them to issues.
Abortion, for example.
I think that the common expectation is that Libertarians are Pro-Choice.
But it turns out, there is an alternative Libertarian interpretation: That in "Life, Liberty and Property", Life comes first and must be protected. That human beings have, foremost, the right to Life. And it is their Libertarian position that it must be defended for all human beings, including those not yet born.
I was surprised to hear this argument, but when I did, it made perfect sense. And among the Libertarians participating, there was no hot-headed debate or name-calling. They each respected the logical process through which the other came to his conclusion.
The one emphasized LIFE (for the baby), the other LIBERTY (for the mother). And both points of view could be logically defended based on Libertarian principles.
And that really appealed to me. Because, since becoming a "Conservative" I have been conflicted over the issue for exactly the reason that both arguments have merit.
I have said that Liberty is the highest human value. But, Liberty doesn't mean much if you're dead. Then again, what's Life without Liberty?
It's a conundrum, alright.
In the end, I think the thoughtful discussion - that included equally various opinions on war, the border and other issues about which I had always assumed monolithic agreement among Libertarians, has rather encouraged me to identify myself more as a Libertarian than I was willing to before.
The Gunslinger
LLP (LifeLibetyProperty)
Joebama American citizens 2024 print
9 months ago
"I have said that Liberty is the highest human value. But, Liberty doesn't mean much if you're dead. Then again, what's Life without Liberty?"
ReplyDeleteIf you don't have Liberty, do you truly have Life? If you are not expressing your own will, your own desires, acting on your own dreams, but forced into doing the bidding of a master?
To live for someone else voluntarily (i.e., marriage) is a quintessential act of Liberty and Life. To live for someone at the point of a gun is not. At some point, it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Some folks confuse "Libertarianism" with a "Libertine" outlook on Life...self-indulgence,and all that. Tags change with the times. "Liberal" once meant you believed in an individual's liberties as long as they did not interfere with other's self-determination or harm...NOW,it means forcing your ethics down other's throats.NOW, "Progressive" means you believe in an increasingly progressive incursion by government bureaucrats into our lives...flipping the definition of "Freedom" into Orwell-Speak Land...
ReplyDeleteWhere there is life, hope springs eternal. Don't know who said that, but even the slave has hope for liberty. Without life, there can be no quest for liberty. Without liberty, there can be no quest for property. I think the priorities are right; Life, Liberty and Property.
ReplyDeleteGraybeard, you have expressed my standard operating philosophy exactly!
ReplyDeleteBut I think it necessary to acknowledge that in the specific case of abortion, there are two competing values involved. And that's what makes it so tough.
The problem is neither side typically acknowledges the existence of the opposing value.
Pro-Lifers disregard the pregnant woman's "Liberty" rights.
Pro-Abortionists disregard the baby's "Life" rights.
Until we state the situation honestly, we can't even have a conversation about it.
TJ...
Libertarianism as understood by teenagers and movie stars. Indeed!
trubolotta,
ReplyDeleteI think that I think Liberty is more important than life.
But...I'm only talking about MY liberty vs MY life.
The question for me is at what point has the threat to or deprivation of my liberty become so severe that I will RISK my life to defend or regain it. That begs the question of when will I risk my life to protect another's life, liberty and property. It doesn't change my priorities, just the relative value of each.
ReplyDeletetrublotta - that is a tough, tough question in the context we usually get it. I'm going to hazard a guess that people on a forum hosted by Gunslinger tend to be gun-friendly. Where I live, I can and do carry a gun regularly. If someone is attacking you, the decision to risk your life for your liberty has pretty much been made for you. Your life is at risk as soon as they pull that gun or knife on you. You're going to lose something before the encounter is over.
ReplyDeleteIn the larger view, we get our liberty taken a little at a time. Usually in the name of "safety" (look at what food safety and toy safety have cost in the last couple of years) or the classic "it's for the children". It's more like a termite infestation than an attack by a thug with a gun. Death by a thousand paper cuts. At some point, if we continue to do nothing, we realize we are not free in any meaningful sense of the word.
TheGraybeard,
ReplyDeleteYour second paragraph is what I had in mind. Basically, when does one invoke the Patrick Henry oath of "give me liberty of give me death"? Human tolerance for loss of liberty, especially by the thousand paper cuts method, seems incredibly high.
But going further, we use our property to purchase our liberty on a near daily basis. On April 15, millions of Americans will sign a piece of paper agreeing to let the federal government steal their money so that more than 50% can be spent illegally. If they don't, they may lose more property and their liberty.
I guess the point is we do surrender our rights on a priority basis, property to save our liberty and liberty before we risk our lives.