New at Reason

February 8, 2007

Cathy Young wonders what the tension between liberty and morality has done to the power and alliances of the Right.

Comments

|2.8.07 @ 9:32AM|#

"To Hayek, moral and cultural standards were the product of spontaneous order emerging from the interplay of economic and social forces, from evolution and experimentation unguided by any central authority."

That's so cute, to think that the set of moral and cultural standards that traditionalists consider mainstream rose to prominence through spontaneous, non-coercive order.

|2.8.07 @ 9:34AM|#

I guess it would be possible to be a libertarian moralist, someone who believes in regulating the lifestyle choices of others through opprobrium but not state coercion. But I've never met such a person. All the libertarians I know are "live and let live" folks, who value the right of others to do what they want behind closed doors. And I think that attitude, maybe more than the libertarian position towards the state, is what attracts people. So I think Cathy's wrong that libertarianism needs to make more room for moralizers to attract more followers. We're in it for the freedom.

|2.8.07 @ 9:59AM|#

Hypocrits, bigots and social engineers. That is what we have on both sides.


They have taken so many contrary positions to their earlier positions they don't even know what they are for or agaisnt anymore. They just go with whatever is totally opposite their opponents or collegues opinion/viewpoint. Eventually they all get around to being for something before they were against it but now are for it again.

Main problem is both want to force their wills on us and have us foot the bill to do it!

|2.8.07 @ 10:13AM|#

I would have much less problem with social conservatives if they were principled federalists. If there are people who combine those traits, they are few and far between.

emme|2.8.07 @ 10:19AM|#

"That's so cute, to think that the set of moral and cultural standards that traditionalists consider mainstream rose to prominence through spontaneous, non-coercive order."

What's your theory?

|2.8.07 @ 10:26AM|#

jbd,

Well, I'm just that sort of libertarian.

Your dichotomy is false. Believing people have a right to do something and thinking that that something is immoral are not mutually exclusive concepts.

|2.8.07 @ 10:32AM|#

emme,

My theory is that, for every limitation our culture puts on human freedom, somewhere between a hundred and a hundred thousand human beings were shot, beheaded, or tied to stakes and roasted for believing or behaving in a contrary manner.

|2.8.07 @ 10:37AM|#

To pre-empt the semantic spiral, please replace "freedom" in the previous sentence with "range of actions."

Larry A|2.8.07 @ 11:07AM|#

I guess it would be possible to be a libertarian moralist, someone who believes in regulating the lifestyle choices of others through opprobrium but not state coercion.

Not really. As soon as you use the word "regulating" you're advocating a position where the moralist has control over other peoples' lifestyle choices.

I seek to influence my daughter by bitching about her smoking. I don't want to regulate her now that she's an adult.

All the libertarians I know are "live and let live" folks, who value the right of others to do what they want behind closed doors.

Or most things out in the open. The consequences of limiting my daughter's liberty are more important to me than the consequences of smoking.

That's so cute, to think that the set of moral and cultural standards that traditionalists consider mainstream rose to prominence through spontaneous, non-coercive order.

Where to start?
1. If by "traditionalists" you mean the religious right then many of their "mainstream cultural standards" are products of their imagination, not the culture. There has never, for instance, been a strong standard that men should remain virgins until marriage.
2. OTOH if a "cultural standard" needs the protection of the law, it isn't really part of the culture.
3. There is no unified "culture." No one "right way to do things." Look at the differences between teenagers and their parents. Look at the differences between the cliques among teenagers. Most cultural standards are set by voluntary compliance within the group, and legislating them, or against them, is counterproductive.

My theory is that, for every limitation our culture puts on human freedom, somewhere between a hundred and a hundred thousand human beings were shot, beheaded, or tied to stakes and roasted for believing or behaving in a contrary manner.

Agreed, except that a hundred thousand is way too low for an upper range. The Nazi holocaust killed several million, and was not an abberation.

Which is why libertarians believe "neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion".

For an example, look at the "Bitch shot me up" article.

Mr. Barry's proposal would increase the penalties for possessing an unregistered weapon in the District from a maximum of one year in prison and a $1,000 fine to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
A second offense could result in 30 years in prison and a $20,000 fine, according to the bill.
Mr. Barry, who was robbed at gunpoint in his Southeast apartment in January 2006, cited statistics that said police had confiscated 2,656 guns last year, with 51 percent of those weapons being seized east of the Anacostia River.

Obviously, despite savage regulation over three decades, firearms are still part of D.C.s culture.

|2.8.07 @ 11:31AM|#

Cathy is right on target with this article.

|2.8.07 @ 11:51AM|#

joe: My theory is that, for every limitation our culture puts on human freedom, somewhere between a hundred and a hundred thousand human beings were shot, beheaded, or tied to stakes and roasted for believing or behaving in a contrary manner.

For any new bloggers here, joe is Hit & Run's little ray of sunshine.

|2.8.07 @ 12:38PM|#

I thought it was a great article.

I guess you can count me as one of those kinds of libertarians: I have strong opinions on how people should live, but would never want to use the government coercive power to do it. I want people to act morally because they want to. The only way to do that is through open and robust communication and debate in our culture at large, which means diverse books, movies, articles, conversations, etc.

Example: drugs. I think they should be legal, but I will at the same time tell stoner friends they are idiots who are ruining their lives and need to (at least) cut back so they can get some ambition back and make something better of themselves. Is that so inconsistent?

uncle sam|2.8.07 @ 12:48PM|#

One problem with "moralists" is that they conflate morés with morality.
They also think civilization is a product of morés rather than the other way around.

|2.8.07 @ 1:05PM|#

uncle sam,

"One problem with "moralists" is that they conflate morés with morality."

Yeah, some do.

Todd,

"Is that so inconsistent?"

No, not at all.

|2.8.07 @ 1:17PM|#

I have a caveat about Ms. Young's article--I don't think you can't really say that progressives always use the power of the state in the same way that conservatives do. There's a difference between using the power to gain more freedom for one's self (gays, women, etc.) vs. using the power of the state to constrain the behavior of everyone else (standard conservative gambit.) I do agree that the"Nanny-stating" behavior of many progressives (everyone must eat 5 helpings of vegetables and fruits a day, no smoking) is about as obnoxious. (Trans-fats? If you make food with them in it, list 'em in the ingredients. Otherwise, let the market fight it out--if enough people want non-trans-fat goodies, the manufacturers of such will win.)

|2.8.07 @ 3:29PM|#

"Just because conservatives are quite wrong (in my opinion) to argue that young women are victimized by sexual freedom doesn't mean that only right-wing killjoys can have misgivings about prepubescent girls parading in T-shirts with vulgar messages and gyrating to music with sexually explicit lyrics."

Do you have links to websites illustrating this type of shocking and appalling behaviour?




Really, it is just a joke!

(But I used Torpark just in case....)

|2.8.07 @ 8:44PM|#

jbd,

Well, I'm just that sort of libertarian.

me too... i'd call myself a "political libertarian" yet uber-socially conservative on the homefront. i don't want a "cultural libertarian" as my neighbor... conversely, their patience and "live and let live" attitude would face a real test if they had to live next door to me.

Xenophun|2.8.07 @ 10:37PM|#

I see two problems with modern society. One is the power of the federal government has become so pervasive that neither side feels any need to explain in any detail why their version of proper human behavior is superior. They just grab the golden ring and legislate it from the top down. The other problem is that our video and internet based discussion are so time limited that in depth debate is almost impossible. Cable news has two talking heads go at each other for five minutes, just spouting talking points. On Hit and Run you have maybe a twelve to eighteen hour window to comment before the thread is dead. This leads to a wide variety of comments and viewpoints, but leaves the discussion rather shallow. Morality is a deep subject with a long history of debate going back to Socrates. I recommend Lecky's "History of European Morals" Volume I Ch. 1 for a good primer of recent moral theory.