[Vision2020] Gier and libertarianism

[David M. Budge]

       From http://davebudge.com



      Devine Dust-up <http://davebudge.net/index.php?p=190>

An essay <http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/libchristian.htm> written by 
Nick Gier, Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, University of 
Idaho, makes cogent points about being a Christian/libertarian and the 
potential oxymoron it implies. Of course, the context of this essay is 
written inside a larger debate where some fundamentalist Christians have 
asserted being libertarian.

To the extent that Prof. Grier is correct that a strict interpretation 
of the Bible may be antithetical to libertarianism, one must also take a 
critical eye to other assertions that he makes. In particular:

    Indeed, libertarianism, with is emphasis on free market economics
    and personal liberty is the most radical movement out of classical
    liberalism. Morphing the fraternite of the French Revolution's motto
    as "community," one can say while the contemporary conservatives
    emphasize community, the liberal focuses on equality, and the
    libertarian affirms liberty exclusively. Libertarians and
    anarchists, their close associates, are the true revolutionaries of
    the modern age.

    The conservatives and liberals who dominate in the world's liberal
    democracies operate within the bounds of classical liberalism, and
    they realize that they have to balance the three values of classical
    liberalism carefully. In other words, good conservatives, while
    emphasizing traditional community values, do not give up liberty and
    equality. Likewise, good liberals, while emphasizing equality, do
    not lose sight of liberty and community. My main problem with
    libertarians is that they see no need for balance, and as a result,
    they threaten the great achievements of classical liberalism.

    The achievements of those political parties allied with the
    Socialist International constitute an empirical disconfirmation of
    libertarian theory. Democratic Socialist, Social Democratic, and
    Labor parties around the world have developed the most prosperous
    and civilized nations in world history. They have broken every
    libertarian economic rule in the book, but a recent New Republic
    article (6/16/03) shows that they meet or exceed the US on all
    economic statistics except for unemployment rates. Of course there
    is no comparison in terms of quality of life indices: the lowest
    crime rates, infant and adult mortality rates, recidivism rates, and
    smallest prison populations. Their schools, heavily unionized and
    centrally controlled, are some of best in the world.

    (emphises added)

One must think, however, about the purported ideological relationship 
between libertarians and anarchists. For sure libertarians embrace 
minimalist government but, anarchist embrace no government - a 
diametrically opposed position of libertarianism. In fact libertarian 
ideology is very specific on the prerequisite that government has a 
specific role of protecting individual liberties inside the context of 
law. Hence the legal concept of nuisance usurps economic liberties 
associated with property.

It may be argued also, to some extent, that libertarians place a lesser 
value on community than modern day liberals or conservatives. The 
assertion that libertarians "see no need for balance, and as a result, 
they threaten the great achievements of classical liberalism" is 
superficial. The libertarian construct of community is indeed void of 
governmental definition of "community" but that does not negate the 
economic principal of "public goods" it simply negates an overbearing 
ownership monopoly of government of property. The "balance" of community 
is therefor self-correcting over time as are economic balances with the 
paradigm of community conscience being unregulated.

The perfect example to illustrate this is government ownership of 
national forest land. One may argue that stewardship of our national 
lands may or may not be better under governmental policy. To be sure 
there are many quasi private/public enterprises that now rebuff the 
supremacy of governmental control by the ever increasing presence of 
environmental land trusts. Of course this collectivism is also used to 
supplement public lands but the control of which is not trusted to 
governmental ownership or otherwise it would be deeded directly to the 
public in one fashion or another. In this context, however, the greater 
issue of ownership posses an ideological paradox for libertarians. If, 
for example, public lands were required to be sold off to private 
interests, the value of land would drop to close to nothing, thereby 
imperiling the economic value of existing land ownership. Thus, action 
by the government would cause a distress of economic liberty in a sense 
by harming value.

The current solution to this quandary by the Libertarian Party is to 
provide competitive leases of public assets to interested parties such 
as The Sierra Club and remand stewardship responsibility to private or 
quasi-private control. Although I'm not a party member, the notion may 
have some merit in its direction. I, however, propose a more cautious or 
incremental approach. The idea seems worth "testing" though.

Furthermore, in the last paragraph sited, I would suggest the measure of 
success is subjective on a normative basis and any advantage of other 
countries broad coalitions may not either be permanent or sustainable 
and certainly not self-correcting. Also, one must consider that failings 
here may be affected by regulation short of social engineering providing 
an outcome of sub-optimal results compared to what may otherwise be 
produced in the absence of governmental interference. But one cannot 
prove a negative.

Prof. Gier's essay does have a very compelling postulate on the aspects 
of religion vis a vis political ideology. It is well thought through and 
quite worth reading.



Nicholas Gier wrote:

>Dear Mr. Burns,
>
>You seem to have missed the main point of my letter about Wilkins.  Just because you heard Wilkins and thought "he made sense" has nothing to do with my charge that he has lifted passages from at least three major works without citation or with very deceptive citation.  Professors fail students for doing this, but Wilkins' and Wilson's infractions are far worst than this.  Wilson's Canon Press made a profit on selling the slavery booklet for 10 years, making a profit on reproducing other scholars' words as if they were their own.
>
>Mr. Burns, if you "want to read and understand history," you should read professional historians not hacks such as Wilson and Wilkins who have no shame let alone credentials to write accurate history.
>
>Yes, there are people on this forum whom I would call "libertarians."  Dave Budge is one of them and Dale Courtney claims to be one.  But his type of Christianity (and yours, too, Mr. Burns)is totally incompatible with libertarianism.  I'm still waiting for Courtnery to respond to my essay on the topic.  I would appreciate your response, too, Mr. Burns.  You can find it at www.class.uidhao.edu/ngier/libchristian.htm.
>
>You then seem to switch to another article of mine, "Chilling Parallels between Christian and Muslim Fundamentalism," so I'll respond to you points in turn
>
>(1) An arrogant proclamation of those 
>who are saved and those who damned; 
>
>I am not the one who says who is saved and who is damned, 
>
>I'm glad that you don't, but Doug Jones said that the Rev. Forrest Church was damned in his debate with Chruch on Sept. 30, 2003 at UI SUB Auditorium.
>
>
>(4) a serious affirmation that the laws of God 
>should be the laws of the land.
>
>I'm glad that my friend Tom Hansen gave you a nice link on Common Law for your edification.  I would just like to add that in the 17th Century Edward Coke, interpreting English Common Law with regard to abortion, ruled that the fetus has no rights until it is born.  But you missed the point of my paragraph.  Wilson and Co. want all Old Testament laws to become laws of the land, including death for homosexuality, disobedient children, apostasy, etc, etc, etc.  I would also like for you to respond to my article on abortion at www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/103/abortion.htm and see if you can give me a coherent biblical defense.
>
>You should read more carefully next time you decide to rant,
>
>Nick Gier, Head Banshee, Palouse Region, Planet Earth
>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>               http://www.fsr.net                       
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050302/e27efcb9/attachment-0001.htm