Are all libertarians socially liberal? I have never for a moment thought so. But there is a debate going on among libertarians right now, and I enjoyed this video:
Part of the confusion comes from people who want to defeat libertarian arguments by smearing libertarians as atheistic hedonists who sport tattoos, piercings, and funny haircuts while smoking pot and having promiscuous sex. The problem is that according to simple logic, a willingness to tolerate things in others in no way means that the tolerant person approves of what he tolerates — much less does those things. Back in the 90s, I got into an argument with a prominent social conservative who was clearly operating with the assumption that libertarians were atheists. His face fell when I told him that I saw no contradiction at all between libertarianism and Christian religiosity; one of my favorite books is The Libertarian Theology of Freedom, by the late Rev. Edmund Opitz.
It is just as much of a mistake to assume that religious Christians who are socially conservative in their personal lives are statists who want the government to run people’s lives as it is to assume that libertarians are atheist hedonists who only oppose statism to enable their irreligious debauchery.
Unfortunately, the prevailing narratives get in the way. Sometimes they even get in the way of a simple Google search.
I disapprove of many things I tolerate, including Google’s electronic narrative enforcement mechanisms, and its assumption that I am a moron who doesn’t understand the search terms I entered. But let’s suppose I refused to tolerate it, and switched to Bing. That would make me intolerant of Google, yet because I would never want the government telling Google what to do, even my intolerance would fall far short of resorting to statism. So I think people can be personally intolerant (of all kinds of things), yet still be libertarian. Social conservatives can be libertarians, and so can social liberals.
There are a number of libertarian social conservatives, and I have met many in the Tea Party moment. So, even though it is a pain for my fingers to have to add words, I really ought to stop using the term “social conservative” or “so con” by way of contrast with libertarian.
Perhaps “statist social conservative” is a better term. Similarly, I am not all that comfortable with the term “social liberal” because there are many social liberals want to use the power of the state to make other people conform to their way of thinking. There are “statist social liberals” as well as “libertarian social liberals.”
Libertarianism (to my mind) means keeping the state out, as much as possible.
But please don’t try telling me that because not wanting to be imposed upon imposes on the imposers, keeping the state out constitutes statism. I don’t have to tolerate that!
Comments
6 responses to “I disapprove of many things I tolerate”
What you should do is type ‘bing’ into Google’s search bar after they hijack a search like that and use the link to Bing provided by Google rather than just going directly to Bing; Google will put 2 and 2 together and figure out what made you look for another search engine. Whether they’ll mend their ways is another story.
Count me in as a Libertarian Social Conservative. I’m surprised your search didn’t give you the Bible verse we read on Sunday. Maybe the best arguement for small limited government in the Bible.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1%20Samuel&c=8&t=NIV
“It is . . . a mistake to assume that religious Christians who are socially conservative in their personal lives are statists who want the government to run people’s lives . . . .”
THANK YOU.
I will amend my discourse accordingly. Thank you!.
“statist social conservative”
=============
From Samuel,
4 ¶ Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
5 and said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. Deut. 17.14
6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
10 ¶ And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
19 ¶ Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
20 that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.
22 And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.
Yep.
As an Orthodox Jew – I am social conservative, but very keen to be left alone by the majority.
Stasocon, doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue when said out loud, but hey.
My comments (some might call rants) are usually most passionate on this particular topic. My arguments and criticisms are directed toward moral authoritarians who have used and want to use the political process in order to bring the coercive police powers of the state to bear against people that aren’t deserving of punishment. My arguments are an effort to not only persuade moral authoritarians that their policy positions are morally wrong in terms of logic and reason, but that their policies are actually undermining the religious foundations that they think their policies are protecting or enhancing.
For example, take the WOD (please). It’s a criminal act to buy, sell and possess certain substances in this nation. It’s a fairly simple argument to show that there is really nothing criminal about buying, selling or possessing these substances (in truth, the law has criminalized risk taking). These things are considered crimes because we choose to call them crimes, not because they are inherently criminal, like murder, rape, and theft, etc. But many Christians and others besides support these laws without question for a variety reasons.
I argue that support for these laws violates one of Christianity’s most prominent Judeo-Christian religious proclamations, specifically the one that states it is a sin to bear false witness against one’s neighbor. This particular commandment is not just an admonishment that it is wrong to lie, but that it is specifically wrong to lie about your neighbor. If we call our neighbor’s actions a crime when it really isn’t under any logical understanding of crime and criminality, then aren’t we bearing false witness against our neighbor when we deem his behaviors crimes and unleash the police powers of the state upon him? You know what I think just by asking the question.
Essentially, my arguments (like the one just made) are calling out all Christians, regardless of political persuasion, and demonstrating to them that large numbers of them have huge blind spots on this issue and others besides. These blind spots result in many of them supporting policies that fly in the face of their own deeply held religious convictions. Metaphorically speaking, I’m trying to be a splash of cold water to the face of the moral authoritarians among us. It is a daunting task as moral authoritarian Christians exist in their own echo chamber that’s 2000 years old and counting.
With that said, if you, dear reader, are a self-described social conservative but aren’t of the moral authoritarian kind, please know I have nothing against you or your beliefs. So please don’t give me grief when I present my arguments in my effort to show moral authoritarian Christians where I think they are in error on various issues. Hopefully you will understand and agree with my criticisms and use them yourselves with your friends, relatives and acquaintances.
And FWIW, my motives are twofold, one is to reform laws that I find problematic based on my libertarian worldview by getting those that oppose reform to reconsider, especially when their opposition is erroneously founded in their religious certitudes. But I also want these authoritarian Christians to understand they are hurting their religion and they don’t realize it. The reason I’m concerned about the latter is that I sincerely believe that the Golden Rule found in Christianity, if understood and practiced properly by all mankind, is the solution to strife and conflict in the world even when divorced from Christian dogmas. I think the moral authoritarian Christians are tarnishing the Christian brand, and therefore undermining the Golden Rule. And that’s a bad thing for us all.