"Congratulations! You're not a libertarian"

Are you aware of the epithet "Conservatarian"? Those of you who don't follow lefty blogs might not be. Basically, it's an insult aimed at self-described small-government conservatives and libertarians who don't seem troubled by the expansions of White House police power, and who reliably back the current president.

Recently, this critique seems to be proliferating; see here, for example, or this year-end wrap-up by Duncan "Atrios" Black:

2005 was the year that the president of the United States declared proudly that he had broken the law repeatedly and with full intention, that he had the power to do so whenever he wanted to, and that he would continue to do so whenever he determined it to be desirable. This declaration was met with basic approval from much of the beltway chattering classes, prominent libertarian bloggers, and just about every small government conservative.

Then there's this are-you-really-a-libertarian quiz.

What's interesting to me is the sorta-implied assumption that at least some libertarian ideals are worth having in the first place. Whether this meme will still exist on the left if the Democrats ever regain power on any national level (or indeed whether it actually exists at all), is another question entirely.

Comments

[Ted]

On social issues (drugs, abortion, prayer in schools), a lot of liberals are at least as libertarian as conservatives claim to be on economic issues. I like libertarian ideals just fine when they seem to work.

[Eric the .5b]

Gee, Democrats criticizing libertarians for not living up to how Democrats think* libertarians should think.

How about a compromise? Democrats get to take away libertarian decoder-rings when they stop calling themselves "liberals".

(*Or say they want libertarians to think - they'd probably much rather libertarians be Democrats. Which is amusing, if mystifying.)

[Eric the .5b]

Ted,

How many Democrats want drugs legalized, abortion available but not subsidized, and public schools eliminated?

[joe]

"What's interesting to me is the sorta-implied assumption that at least some libertarian ideals are worth having in the first place."

Or, to tighten that up a bit, "Whoo-hoo! Somebody noticed us!" I keed, I keed!

"Whether this meme will still exist on the left if the Democrats ever regain power on any national level (or indeed whether it actually exists at all), is another question entirely." Um, Professor? Wasn't the ACLU founded several decades ago, when the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House?

[fyodor]

You believe in the power of the free market, whatever it may be, to solve all the world?s problems.

Oh, jeez...

That blogger takes a lot of words to make a pretty simple and obvious point. At least he or she (anyone know Sifu's gender?) gave some good examples to show how easily security powers can be misapplied.

[Vanya]

Both left and right adopt some libertarian precepts when it is convenient for them to do so. It made sense in the 1970s and 80s for libertarians to make common cause with conservatives since conservatives at least paid lip service to libertarian values, and big government liberals, even under Reagan, still held considerable political clout. But the lefty bloggers are right to point out that no self-respecting libertarian should be making common cause with someone like Bush - a social activist, big government type. But the left has not shown any convincing reasons why libertarians should suddenly vote Democratic. If there were ever a time for a real 3rd party you might think 2008 would be the best opportunity we are likely to see for years to come.

[Eric the .5b]

Third parties take time and sustained public interest before they take over from one of the established two. Maybe 2010 if a third party started making waves and actually running people everywhere.

[Eric the .5b]

This declaration was met with basic approval from much of the beltway chattering classes, prominent libertarian bloggers, and just about every small government conservative.

I've asked this elsewhere and not had it answered. Who are the "prominent libertarian bloggers" who expressed their "basic approval" with the NSA business? Who are the "small government conservatives" (ie, the ones people don't burst out laughing when they apply that label to them) who've done the same?

[Eric the .5b]

And I'd prefer links to statements of approval, not "Glenn Reynolds sleeps with a GWB-faced teddy bear" or "XYZ says that the actions may or may not have been legal given precedence."

[theOneState]

you read ?Atlas Shrugged? in fifth grade and really dug it

Did not.

[Ironchef]

joe once the ACLU recognizes the Second Amendment, I'll join.

[thoreau]

Since we're talking about people being voted off of the libertarian island, I'd just like to remind everybody of a thread where I declared somebody a member of the tribe:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/03/conservatives_a_2.shtml

[JD]

That "Libertarianism for Dummies" thing is so poorly written my eyes began to glaze over after one paragraph, so I have no idea whether it was insulting or flattering.

Eric the .5b: Why, the libertarian bloggers in their heads, of course! It's so much easier to attack strawmen than to deal with real humans. Seriously, it does seem to me that some subset of leftists has a really unreasoning hatred of libertarianism. I half-suspect that it has something to do with the fact that, at a deep level, we do threaten their desire to control how people behave, but that's just idle speculation. (I have also encountered much more reasonable leftists who do happily recognize areas where our interests coincide and are willing to engage in constructive discussion.)

[Captain Holly]

The problem with libertarians is even they don't have a clear idea of what they stand for.

Many left-wing libertarians are really just liberal Democrats who worship abortion above all else. Mention the Second Amendment to them and they run away, screaming and covering their ears.

[Eric the .5b]

The problem with libertarians is even they don't have a clear idea of what they stand for.

Speak for yourself.

[Ed]

Waste of time.

[Warren]

...libertarians who don't seem troubled by the expansions of White House police power, and who reliably back the current president.

WTF? Do such people really exist? Seems more likely the result of an 'everybody who doesn't agree with me must all think alike' mentality. I fricking hate the libertarian=conservative myth not just because it's so insulting but also because it's so hard to kill.

So you say unrestrained executive power is incompatible with small government huh? Gee ya think?! Hey here's a news flash for ya, when I told you I was a libertarian that was to distinguish myself from conservative Republicans as much as liberal Democrats. Here's another, just because I agree with you that Republicans are scumbags doesn't in the least bit change my position about Democrats being just as scummy.

Conservatarian my ass. How about I invent a label:
Progressazi
Big government liberals who don't seemed troubled by the terrorist actions of Osama Bin Laden and reliably back Al Qaeda.

ASSHATS

[David]

Aren't most of the terms so filled with contradictions that they're effectively meaningless? It's difficult tell where people stand on an issue by how they self-identify, and whether their opinion on one issue will apply to a similar issue.

[theCoach]

Just to clear things up a bit:

Jim Henley == libertarian

Instapundit == Conservatarian

[Eric the .5b]

And theCoach, as is typical, avoids the question in favor of smugly dubbing someone a "Conservatarian".

Funny, if folks like Reynolds were such obvious boosters of the NSA stuff and unbounded executive authority, you'd think people would be able to, you know, quote them saying so.

[David]

Many left-wing libertarians are really just liberal Democrats who worship abortion above all else.

Do these abortion worshippers have ceremonies like in Temple of Doom, with people chanting while Mola Ram reaches into the abdomens of pregnant women then holds the fetus aloft as the crowd reaches a crescendo?

[James Anderson Merritt]

I have never understood how anyone can possibly call himself or herself a "libertarian," who endorses pre-emptive war without iron-clad proof (and by that I am talking about being quicker-on-the-draw than an opponent in a showdown that is undoubtably in progress), or the continuation/escalation of aggressive foreign policies that make war inevitable. Yet a great many people who do just that seem to be inhabiting the blogosphere, and appearing as talking heads on TV.

A "libertarian" who advocates "liberty for me but not for thee" is no libertarian. A "libertarian" who endorses the inevitable killing of innocents as a means of "protecting" himself or innocents in his neighborhood -- purchasing his liberty with the blood of those who have done him no harm and who do not threaten him -- is no libertarian. A "libertarian" who is cool with breaking the law and violating individual rights that are protected by the nation's constitution because "we're at war" is no libertarian.

Liberty works as well as anything you CAN try and better than most things that people DO try. Someone who doesn't have that conviction, or the courage of it, is no libertarian.

[Jamie Kelly]

"The problem with libertarians is even they don't have a clear idea of what they stand for."

Yeah. Limited government. The end of corporate and individual welfare. The privatization of public schools. The end of the drug war. Severely limited taxation or a flat tax. The scrapping of burdensome and hurtful business regulations. Gay unions and straight unions. Free speech, the complete division between church and state, no Department of Education, no Drug Enforcemenent Administration, no BATF, a transition out of Medicare and Medicaid, privatization of Social Security ...
Yep, not a fucking clue what we stand for.

[John Rhoads]

There are more problems with the ACLU than just the second amendment. Their take on the first amendment seems to be that you do, in fact, have the right to force people to listen to your point of view:
http://reason.com/Strossen.shtml
...or at least their president feels that way.

That being said, most of the lobbying and cases they take on are positive. At least they don't lobby against the second amendment.

[Eric the .5b]

A "libertarian" who endorses the inevitable killing of innocents as a means of "protecting" himself or innocents in his neighborhood -- purchasing his liberty with the blood of those who have done him no harm and who do not threaten him -- is no libertarian.

That would pretty much require that anyone who ever supported any war, anywhere, can't be a libertarian.

[Jason Ligon]

Blah. I get accused of this all the time. In my experience, there are two points of origin for the conservatarian label:

1) The assumption that all real libertarians are anarchists

2) The insistence that every issue is a deal breaker issue for the libertarian label

[Mr. Nice Guy]

A bit off-topic, but here is how I deal with our forced Red/Blue dichotomy:

When talking with pansy ass modern liberals, keep the bashing to: corporate welfare, the drug war

When talking with bible-thumping Jaysus freaks, keep the bashing to: the welfare state, anti-gun rights

If desire to cause ruckus, flip/flop.

[Captain Holly]

Speak for yourself.

Okay, I will. Several years ago, when I finally got fed up with fecklessness of the Gingrich Republicans, I decided to join the Libertarians instead. One of my acquaintances hosted the monthly party meeting in that area, so I went.

What I found was a motley collection of eccentrics and curmudgeons, with a few paranoid UN-Black-Helicopter types thrown in (my friend was one of the few normal ones). Later, I jokingly referred to them as the Judean People's Front because it seemed to me their "platform" essentially demanded the immediate dismantling of all government programs ASAP.

I realized very quickly that these people had no influence or political future because none of them seemed to grasp the reality of how the system worked. It was more of a rhetorical circle-jerk for intellectual misanthropes. They were right because, well, they were smarter than everyone else, and to them the virtue of their positions was self-evident. The idea of actually working with people of different beliefs to achieve a common goal was viewed as "compromising".

(I often detect the same attitudes here, BTW).

Although I could be described as libertarian (gun owner and homeschooler who detests speech codes and the Nanny State) it's pretty safe to say I'm not one, at least not in the official sense. From my experience, the Libertarians are even less coherent than the Democrats.

[Jason Ligon]

JAM:

I've had that discussion many, many times hereabouts. Libertarianism doesn't tell you very much about foreign policy.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Doesn't the ACLU take on a lot of affirmative action bullshit? They strike me as being much more modern liberal then classic liberal.

Otherwise, I would be very happy to join.

[Eric the .5b]

Captain Holly,

Try not to mistake either

1) the Libertarian Party for all (or even most) libertarians or

2) different sorts of libertarians believing in different things for libertarians not having a clear idea for what they themselves stand for.

[Dave Straub]

Eric the .5b: I've asked this elsewhere and not had it answered. Who are the "prominent libertarian bloggers" who expressed their "basic approval" with the NSA business?

I was as perplexed by this as you seem to be, and I asked this same question in the comments thread to the Atrios post to which Matt links. One response: "Glenn Reynolds." Figures...

[GILMORE]

JD sez, ?It does seem to me that some subset of leftists has a really unreasoning hatred of libertarianism?

Yes. There is, and they do. I got jumped by some on New Years when I suggested the MTA should be disbanded and the NY transit system semi-privatized.

But there?s also a subset of conservatives who have the same thing. The Fatherland, my blood-runs-redder-than-yours types.

Check out the book ?The True Believer? by Eric Hoffer. One of the best things I?ve ever read, and it actually deals directly with this phenomena?which I?ll call ?The Dylan, ?66? effect = when people become vicious at you just because you choose to do your own thing

[Stevo Darkly]

That "Libertarianism for Dummies" thing is so poorly written my eyes began to glaze over after one paragraph, so I have no idea whether it was insulting or flattering.

Well, let me tell you, kiddies. I (gullible idiot that I am) waded through "Libertarianism for Dummies" (really, is there any other kind?) at thepoorman.net -- you know? the blog? -- and tried doggedly to figure out what the point was. You know, the point? The reason for writing something, right? The thing that should not be unnecessarily belabored before getting to it? Yes. You know what I'm saying. You betcha. Well, I got halfway through it. (By "halfway" I mean approximately between 30% and 60% through the text.) I was waiting for it to ask a question. Doesn't a "quiz" have to contain AT LEAST ONE QUESTION? You'd think so, wouldn't you? Well, I got halfway through and gave up. And you, busy not-brown-skinned person that you are, you are probably wondering why I took so damn long to get to the point, aren't you? Or whether I even HAVE a point buried somewhere in this text encrusted like barnacles with an excess of indulgent digressions and oh-so-sassy and breezy but irrelevant insinuations? Well, now you know how it feels, whiteboy. Welcome to the seminar.

[Eric the .5b]

Stevo for the win!

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

Captain Holly is speaking about the party as in capital 'L'. Many of you are speaking about being small 'l'. Most don't know the difference.

As to Captain Holly's hand-wringing, I place the blame squarely on the party leadership. They really have no idea what they're doing.

[Eric the .5b]

I was as perplexed by this as you seem to be, and I asked this same question in the comments thread to the Atrios post to which Matt links. One response: "Glenn Reynolds." Figures...

I'll give it a week, in the interests of hoping to catch some putz who actually fits the description, if such a putz exists.

[Eric the .5b]

Captain Holly is speaking about the party as in capital 'L'. Many of you are speaking about being small 'l'. Most don't know the difference.

Or pretend not to.

[GILMORE]

Jamie Kelly
Question =
Why should ?the complete division between church and state? be a libertarian ideal? I mean, what I?m asking is, do you mean that you think that the current setup is far too intertwined, despite the establishment clause, and we need to distance the State and God even more?
I would have thought the libertarian position on religion would be ?go for it?. Do as you will. That religion is a form of speech, and is protected by the first amendment.
I think the current spate of cases about plastic jesus on the library steps, or kids having after-school prayer seminars are all so silly and basically end up limiting people?s speech in the name of ?keeping religion out of public places?. I don?t believe in needing to have all public life in some kind of ?god-free? vacuum where people?s metaphysical assumptions are essentially gagged. I don?t think that is consistent with liberty. Let people invoke the almighty all they want. They just can?t use him to make law.

[Captain Holly]

Eric, Goiter:

Point taken. I will try not to lump the two groups in with each other.

Although I will note that libertarians seem to disagree with each other far more often than either Republicans or Democrats. Blame Ayn Rand, I guess.

[PintofStout]

Gilmore,
Give one good reason why public funds looted from me should be used to affirm or propegate or support in any way someone's metaphysical assumptions.

[fyodor]

Captain Holly,

Eric's & Goiter's point aside, your description of LP folks seems to paint them as unrealistic snobs and weirdos, but they do seem to know what they stand for, ie, in your own words, "the immediate dismantling of all government programs ASAP." Regarding your more recent post that "libertarians seem to disagree with each other far more often than either Republicans or Democrats," I would ask, do they disagree about public policy? Or do they disagree about other things? Cause those are two very different things. It's been my observation that while the libertarian philosophy is much more consistent and, I think anyway, principled than whatever passes as Democratic or Republican "philosophy," libertarians do disagree with each far more than Dems or Repubs once you get away from their unifying philosophy about public policy. Which personally, I find...neat.

[Captain Holly]

Give one good reason why public funds looted from me should be used to affirm or propegate or support in any way someone's metaphysical assumptions.

PintofStout provides yet another reason I'm not (officially) Libertarian: Their increasingly open hostility to religion.

[Ammonium]

If the Libertarians are so hostile to religion, how do I get them to support the installation of a big statue that says "Religion is Bullshit" at my nearest courthouse?

Who is going to stop me from expressing my first amendment rights to religious speech in a public forum? Certainly not the Libertarians since they hate religion.

[Eric the .5b]

Although I will note that libertarians seem to disagree with each other far more often than either Republicans or Democrats. Blame Ayn Rand, I guess.

Republicans and Democrats primarily distinguish themselves by championing one side of various binary issues. Those who disagree from the chosen side of the party on too many issues get a lot of flak.

This is one of the differences between a political party and a political outlook.

[David]

Oh, by the way, unrestrained executive power is not incompatible with small government: the "government" would be a lot smaller without Congress and the courts. I guess we should clarify that we want a smaller bureaucracy.

Ammonium,

Fewer people does not necessarily equal smaller government. Fewer laws, and fewer topics that can be legislated on does. By smaller, people mean with less authority to interfere in the lives of the governed.

[Jamie Kelly]

Gilmore:
People are all sorts of free in public life to say Jesus, pray to Jesus, wear a Jesus T-shirt, eat Jesus crackers, etc. What I object to is the use of taxpayer (i.e., MY) money to express any sort of symbolic or real belief in some higher power. A Jesus display on the courthouse steps respects an "establishment of religion," and is unconstitutional.

[slightlybad]

The thing that gets Glen Reynolds in trouble with some people is his lawyerly parsing of government actions. You can think that something is wrong without it being illegal. I doubt that Reynolds actually supports a lot of what Bush has done one the executive power front, but he is quick to point out that its not illegal or at least is a constitutionally murky question. People conflate that with support for such positions, which it is not. I would imagine what lead a lot of us to libertarianism are the constant attempts of people(on both sides of the aisle) to enact their personal preferences into law.

[fyodor]

Captain Holly,

Your desire not to be considered (officially!!) a Libertarian endearingly reminds me of how I didn't want to be considered a Dead Head in college even when the Dead were more or less my favorite band. In retrospect I'm kinda glad I took that position.

Also makes me think of my church. The Church of the Subgenius. An organization that cannot exist because the only people who would join are people who would never join anything!

Not sure what you should take from all this, but I thought I'd mention it for its own sake....

[Captain Holly]

Fyodor:

This is a bit unrelated, but I saw the Dead in '87.

Concert wasn't bad, but the entourage of Dead Heads was the real show.

[R C Dean]

libertarians who don't seem troubled by the expansions of White House police power, and who reliably back the current president.

I personally can't recall spotting such a creature on-line.

First, I'm pretty sure lefty bugaboo Glenn Reynolds doesn't consider himself a libertarian.

Second, the phrase "White House police power" is a non sequitur. Police power is a term of art, referring to the right of a government to make laws necessary for the health, morals, and welfare of the populace.

In the dim, misty past, back when we lived under Constitutional government, most police power resided at the state level, with only strictly limited and defined police powers at the federal level. Now, of course, the police powers of the federal level are all but unlimited, and while the delegation of lawmaking to administrative agencies formally housed in the executive branch is a major problem, I don't think this is what Matt had in mind.

For the record, I don't reliably back the President, as I think most of his domestic agenda has been shite. I am deeply troubled by the increasing concentration of police power at the federal level, including administrative agencies that report, on paper, to the White House, over the past decades.

So I guess I'm not a conservatarian.

[quasibill]

"Libertarianism doesn't tell you very much about foreign policy."

Well, only if you pick and choose your belief in libertarian principles like Falwell picks and chooses his belief in Christian principles.

What part of not imposing, through force, costs on other innocent people for your benefit doesn't apply to foreign policy?

[Kwix]

Fyodor,
Praise Bob!

Captain Holly,
PintofStout provides yet another reason I'm not (officially) Libertarian: Their increasingly open hostility to religion.

Here is the issue. Libertarians are for religion, all religions. The right to espouse your religious ideals are tightly woven into the "Freedom of Speech".

The problem is, do you want your money to support your local Baptist congregation? What about you local Buddhist Temple? What if you go to court and you see mounted on the wall behind the judge a plaque that reads "There is no will but Allah's". What about lighting the "Bonfire for Satan" every Halloween in town square? I personally want my money to go to organizations I support, not organizations you say I should support.

For the record, I am an Agnostic with Atheistic leanings, not that it should matter to anyone.

[linguist]

It's been my observation that while the libertarian philosophy is much more consistent and, I think anyway, principled than whatever passes as Democratic or Republican "philosophy," libertarians do disagree with each far more than Dems or Repubs once you get away from their unifying philosophy about public policy. Which personally, I find...neat.

I'd say, even more than neat! If the whole point is that we can all be free, then if our philosophy is correct we all should differ. I've always thought that was kind of the whole point! 🙂

[Jason Ligon]

"What part of not imposing, through force, costs on other innocent people for your benefit doesn't apply to foreign policy?"

The part that allows me to be a minarchist instead of an anarchist. I accept a role for police and the military, and I accept a role for the state in negotiating with the heads of other states. All of that is funded on the backs of people who may or may not agree with a specific outcome.

[Phil]

First, I'm pretty sure lefty bugaboo Glenn Reynolds doesn't consider himself a libertarian.

" . . . I say this as a guy who's never been overwhelmed with the quality of the choices given me, and who's voted Libertarian for President three times."

A Google search of instapundit.com shows about 205 hits for "libertarian." Reynolds may play coy, but that's pretty clearly how he wants to be thought of. (He also writes for TCS, doncha know.)

[ChrisO]

Quasibill: In general, I agree. Problem is that libertarianism is not always that easy to apply to foreign policy in practice. On certain issues, such as tariffs and free movement of persons, there is little or no dispute.

But on questions like state-sponsored terrorism, libertarianism doesn't provide pat answers any better than any other philosophy. If you attack/invade a state than sponsors terrorist activity or other forms of "indirect warfare," you will kill/harm many innocent people. Yet if you do nothing, your own citizens will continue suffer. There are other approaches I suppose (sanctions, support for indigenous regime change), but they amount to less direct forms of intimidation or harm that also will make people suffer.

[Warren]

Libertarianism doesn't tell you very much about foreign policy.

Yeah I mean its not like the LP platform contains a 2000 word section of Foreign Affairs. Oh wait, IT DOES. But still it's not like libertarian think tanks like the CATO institute issue policy papers, release press statement or hold forums on foreign policy. Oh wait

[fyodor]

But on questions like state-sponsored terrorism, libertarianism doesn't provide pat answers any better than any other philosophy. If you attack/invade a state than sponsors terrorist activity or other forms of "indirect warfare," you will kill/harm many innocent people. Yet if you do nothing, your own citizens will continue suffer.

What I find valuable in the libertarian philosophy as you've applied it here, albeit with no conclusion, is that at least it's assisted in cutting straight to the relevant issues. Notice no hysterical blaming of the other side. Not that libertarians are immune to that, just that the libertarian philosophy I think does assist in identifying the important and relevant issues in a matter, even on topics which, alas, avail themselves to no pat answer for anyone. The thorniness of state sponsored terrorism can be expanded to all extra-territorial crime that is not dealt with adequately.

[Captain Holly]

The problem is, do you want your money to support your local Baptist congregation? What about you local Buddhist Temple? What if you go to court and you see mounted on the wall behind the judge a plaque that reads "There is no will but Allah's". What about lighting the "Bonfire for Satan" every Halloween in town square? I personally want my money to go to organizations I support, not organizations you say I should support.

I would agree, but that's not the examples that were provided by Gilmore in his original post.

Or, put it simply, how does a group of Christian kids voluntarily meeting together to read the Bible after school constitute state support of Christianity?

I find that libertarians are quite supportive of religion in the abstract. But when it comes to actually defending religious freedom, they tend to demand that religious people -- especially Christians -- keep their religion in the closet, which is absurd and unconstitutional.

[Jason Ligon]

Warren:

Cato does not define libertarianism as a political philosophy. It represents what some libertarians think. What I mean is that foreign policy is not derivable from libertarian (little l) first principles.

The LP is not a serious organization, and I would not use it to advance any position I wished others to take seriously.

[Eric the .5b]

Yeah I mean its not like the LP platform contains a 2000 word section of Foreign Affairs. Oh wait, IT DOES.

Anyone who tries to come to any real conclusion on foreign affairs (or any topic) based on the LP platform and other materials is an idiot.

But still it's not like libertarian think tanks like the CATO institute issue policy papers, release press statement or hold forums on foreign policy.

Here, you're on better ground, even if you're bizarrely assuming that because libertarian think tanks define fundamental principles.

[Eric the .5b]

Or, put it simply, how does a group of Christian kids voluntarily meeting together to read the Bible after school constitute state support of Christianity?

They're perfectly free to do so in their own homes. When they're meeting in a space provided by a public school for that purpose, things change. Keeping open a meeting-place in a public school after-hours requires the spending of public money.

And beyond mere libertarian questions, it's obviously an endorsement of a particular religion if the school for any reason doesn't allow similar groups of any religion whatsoever to take advantage.

[Eric the .5b]

Or, put it simply, how does a group of Christian kids voluntarily meeting together to read the Bible after school constitute state support of Christianity?

To amplify, they're perfectly free to do so in their own homes or in any other place where the private owners let them or else is an open public space. A public school meets none of these criteria.

[Warren]

Jason & Eric,
I for one (and I think I may be the only one) think the LP is the finest political party in the country. Even if that is like saying they are the biggest turd in the sewer, I stand by it.

To the point that libertarianism is different than what is written by libertarians, OK fair cop. Refer to Quasibill @ 3:55.

Never the less, I do find the LP platform inspired by, and consistent with, libertarian principals (and yes it does get a bit loopy here and there but loopy and consitent with founding principals are not mutually exclusive) Ditto for most of what CATO puts out (they don't go off the deep end, but sometimes I think they get a little to cozy with the money)

[bago]

I sometimes wonder what would happen if you just offered a 100 billion dollar prize to the group that was able to oust Saddam and hold peaceful elections for 2 years running.

[Warren]

To amplify, they're perfectly free to [pray] in their own homes or in any other place where the private owners let them or else is an open public space. A public school meets none of these criteria.

The first amendment prohibits the government from both establishing a religion and prohibiting the free exercise there of. I don't see how you can say prohibiting prayer in a public school is anything other than a violation of the first amendment. If you say that allowing them to do so is also a violation because it would be the equivalent of establishing a religion, I'm skeptical but could be persuaded. The logical conclusion is that public schools are unconstitutional.

[Kwix]

Captain Holly,
My statement was to you, not Gilmore. But lets step back to that then.

I think the current spate of cases about plastic jesus on the library steps, or kids having after-school prayer seminars are all so silly and basically end up limiting people?s speech in the name of 'keeping religion out of public places'.

Is it acceptable for protestors to congregate on the steps of the Supreme Court to chant anti-abortion slogans? Of course it is, that is freedom of speech. Is it right for a marble copy of the "Ten Commandments" to be displayed in an offical manner along side Lady Justice? No as that is an explicit bias toward the "Judeo-Christian" religions. What is the difference? One is performed by a group of people in a "non-official" capacity. The other, is peformed by "public servants" and imply that this act rules over all the public.

As for the "Public Library" issue, it is a tax funded institution and as such "represents" the entirety of the tax paying public. By the Library itself placing a nativity scene on it's property it confers a governmental endorsement of a particular religion. While it does not violate the wording of the 1st amendment, it could be viewed to violate the 1st amendment's ban on religious establishment.

It is a fine line between "free speech" and "religous freedom" when you throw the "public" spaces bit in. The easiest way to look at it is to take the absolute worst case scenario and apply it. If you are a Evangelical Christian how would you feel if you went into a court room and you had to swear on the "Satanic Bible" or if your child came home from school saying that they announced ritualistic sacrifices over the P.A. system earlier in the day. What if in order to use the public library that your tax dollars funded you had to walk past a statue of Jesus hanging upside down.

I know it sounds rediculous that something like this could happen, and truth is it won't because Christians are the religious majority in this country. However, might does not make right and when the government endorses any religion, all lose.

[GILMORE]

Pint o' Stout, Captain Holly, Jamie Kelly.

Thanks to all of you for replying, and still not answering my question 🙂

I wasnt positing that I think "blah blah blah"...

i was saying i simply dont understand the rationale you presented that seems to result in significantly greater threats to individual freedom (restriction of speech) than it does free us from 'government' influence or any authoritarianism.

The legal infrastructure that maintains our 'de-religionized' state 'wastes' far more of your taxpayer dollars by making common cultural practices subject to judicial review. i.e. plastic jesus in the parking lot, outside the library, up on a pole, dancing with dinosaurs whatever. i.e. "too many laws".

My question was trying to tune itself specifically to try to get to the pragmatic point about why dereligionizing is so necessary to do, from a libertarian point of view.

All of you immediately jumped on this thing like, "Ach! never shall my money be spent on..!"

OK, that much i get! I wasnt asking for a donation! 🙂

But dont you think it's a little irrational to act like plastic jesus is as great a threat to your freedons and is as demonstrative of wasteful government spending than say, a missle defense shield? Bridges to nowhere? The MTA?

To be clear - I never suggested at all that "public funds looted from [you] should be used to affirm or propegate or support"...etc. Say we pay for plastic jesus by having a bake sale? Would that make it ok for you? i suspect not. So just set the money thing aside for the moment.

I was asking why people feel a pressing need to sanitize the public space of [insert divine being] even more than we already have. Its not separate enough for you? I gather from what you guys are saying, the French 'banning headscarves' thing was a GOOD idea?

a) do you really think religion is too intertwined in the state as it stands? And it presents a threat to your personal freedoms?

b) do you think more law needs to be passed regulating religious speech?

If yes, explain how these are sensible extentions of libertarian principles, cause I am still missing it.

FYI - I am god-free myself (unless I happen to BE one, which i suspect from time to time)

JG

[Kwix]

Warren,
The first amendment prohibits the government from both establishing a religion and prohibiting the free exercise there of. I don't see how you can say prohibiting prayer in a public school is anything other than a violation of the first amendment.

A child can pray in school. In fact, most do before every math exam. A child can say "God bless you!" in school. However, forming prayer groups with "official school sponsors" and using tax money to extend the hours the school is open bridges that gap and constitutes "establishment".

If children want to meet early in the morning, or late in the afternoon, or even at lunch in the public spaces of the school for a "prayer group" I don't see a problem. However, when schools start expending income and requiring "sponsors" (as most do for extra-curricular clubs) to espouse any religion then becomes unconstitutional.

[Eric the .5b]

I don't see how you can say prohibiting prayer in a public school is anything other than a violation of the first amendment.

That was not the example offered.

[Shem]

slightlybad-Presumably Reynolds isn't being paid to be an apologist for the Bush Administration. Given this apparent fact, why, other than support for their actions, would he have any rationale to do what you say he does?

[Eric the .5b]

I for one (and I think I may be the only one) think the LP is the finest political party in the country. Even if that is like saying they are the biggest turd in the sewer, I stand by it.

No matter how excellent the turd is, it's not anything a sensible person wants in their soup.

[Warren]

Eric & Kwix,
Gotcha, I'm cool with that.

[Eric the .5b]

But dont you think it's a little irrational to act like plastic jesus is as great a threat to your freedons and is as demonstrative of wasteful government spending than say, a missle defense shield? Bridges to nowhere? The MTA?

For anyone acting that way, yes. I'm not seeing anyone here doing so.

[Stretch]

When I was in high-school there was a group of kids who got together every morning to have a prayer meeting in the parking lot. It was on school grounds, but in no way costing any extra money. Anyone who really has a non-personal problem with that baffles me.

We seem to be moving towards some sort of hyper-sensitivity as a society, where anything I don't like must "offend" me and is therefore grounds for a federal case. Although, perhaps it is like the brouhaha over the impending theocracy, where an honest look at our history will show that there used to be far more religion in our law than there is today. Maybe people were always hyper-senstitive weenies who took offense to the slightest action and went running to poppa president to save the day. Maybe we've just built better soapboxes is all.

[Eric the .5b]

Anyone who really has a non-personal problem with that baffles me.

Barring them being really obnoxious, anyone who has any sort of problem baffles me. But administrative paranoia and dumb decisions in the matter of schools and religion don't go anywhere towards arguing against separation of church and state.

[Kwix]

God...I mean Gilmore, 🙂

I'll step up to it from my point of view.

a) do you really think religion is too intertwined in the state as it stands? And it presents a threat to your personal freedoms?

Yes, religion as a whole is too intertwined in the government, but the vast majority of the citizens don't see it. Government endorsed religion, as it stands right now, does not present a threat to my personal freedoms however it is not a far step before it does. Swearing on Bibles for court is a bit far. The ten commandments that Justice Moore had on display specifically prohibit any religion other than the Judeo-Christian (thou shalt have no other God before me), explicitly tell me to worship (Keep the Sabbath Holy), tell me how I should view my personal relationships (Thou shalt not commit adultery) and what I should think (thou shall not covet nor desire).

You are correct that there are more pressing economic problems with the government than religious segregation but there is none that is more pressing to personal freedoms than one's own thoughts.

b) do you think more law needs to be passed regulating religious speech?

The laws in the constitution pretty much sum it up. So long as Congress pays for something it is public. If it is public than it may not be used in the establishment of a religion.

If a shopkeeper wants to post religous doctrine on his/her windows then so be it, it is the individual's choice. Publicly funded establishments (schools, libraries, courts, congress, police services, military, etc.) may not constitutionally support or endorse ANY religion. No further laws needed.

[MP]

Or, put it simply, how does a group of Christian kids voluntarily meeting together to read the Bible after school constitute state support of Christianity?

"To amplify, they're perfectly free to do so in their own homes or in any other place where the private owners let them or else is an open public space. A public school meets none of these criteria."

Comment by: Eric the .5b at January 4, 2006 04:54 PM

Public schools typically stay open after class to support a collection of after school activities. Allowing for student run clubs of a religious nature is not a violation of church/state principals. FIRE (a group which I heartily support) fights all the time on behalf of religious groups who seek to organize on college campuses (who accept federal funds and thus become vassals of the state).

[fyodor]

do you think more law needs to be passed regulating religious speech?

No, the 1st Amendment suffices.

I gather from what you guys are saying, the French 'banning headscarves' thing was a GOOD idea?

WTF?? How do you gather that?? Actually, when that first happened, folks in these parts were rather pissed off about it, as I recall.

[Eric the .5b]

Allowing for student run clubs of a religious nature is not a violation of church/state principals.

As long as any religious club is permitted, no.

From a libertarian point of view, the government shouldn't be subsidizing or supporting any school club.

[crimethink]

Eric,

OK, what if a group of kids want to get together to play chess or discuss some secular topic after school? Would you prohibit them from doing so, because of all the extra money necessary to keep the school open?

[joshua corning]

It's been my observation that while the libertarian philosophy is much more consistent and, I think anyway, principled than whatever passes as Democratic or Republican "philosophy," libertarians do disagree with each far more than Dems or Repubs once you get away from their unifying philosophy about public policy. Which personally, I find...neat.

I'd say, even more than neat! If the whole point is that we can all be free, then if our philosophy is correct we all should differ. I've always thought that was kind of the whole point! 🙂

I totally dissagree.
..
.
.
.
.

.
big L or little l, we are never going to take congress are we?

[GILMORE]

TWIX =

""Is it right for a marble copy of the "Ten Commandments" to be displayed in an offical manner along side Lady Justice? No as that is an explicit bias toward the "Judeo-Christian" religions.""

This is really funny 🙂 Actually dude, I'd counter that with the fact that "Lady Justice" is in fact Themis, a Greek pre-Hellenic nature deitie born to Uranus and Ge. The government has established a ancient greek mythology bias! They even design all the courthouses to look like the parthanon! Shock! Outrage! Next thing they're going to do is make us sacrifice lambs to pay our parking tickets!

Do you see the point I'm making here dude? One myth is dangerous, but others arent? It does not constitute endorsement. It constitutes Lawn Sculpture.

Not only that = that because of this mythological paranoia, we now also have to have teams of lawyers DEBATING whether to put a menora 'near' or 'next to' Santa in order to have their powerful disruptive mythological forces neutralized by each other.

That kind of idiocy offends me more than the occasional praise of SuperBeings, franky.

Praise Bob, btw.

i've read case law on a selection of these (silly) 'put 2 elves next to manger and its Kosher!' decisions, and I can tell you that for anyone to declare authoritatively that "if it's in front of a parking meter/library/DMV, it's Endorsement and therefore illegal" is absolutely silly. Thats just not true. There's tons of wiggle room and the Justices have been very conscious of the fine line they dance with this "establishment meets speech" issue.

My dad was a layer attached to the Lynch v. Donnelly case in 1986(i think). There was an initial foo foo he got involved with over Jews in Scarsdale not liking the manger in front of the real estate office. He volunteered and the case went to the supreme court. I loved that fact. People were yelling about whether plastic jesus was using electricity from the post office. I started to get interested in this topic around that time.

Eric the point fiver =

"A public school meets none of these criteria."

I love it. You guys keep proving my point.

"Public schools should not be used for the public. They can exchange ideas, but not in their free time, and not using the electricity that we're already using to allow basketball practice to run late. Only sanitized state sanctioned ideas can be exchanged. Anything else constitutes the President becoming a Grand Patriarch and we all have to shave our heads and bow to his image 3 times a day."

I know the Lemon test, and I still dont see how allowing people to use public resources they pay for in activities that are voluntary and completely innocuous constitudes 'endorsement'. You did add in the 'if they didnt allow *others* than it would be unconstitutional" Thats correct. But wasnt your starting point that, hey, it's unconstitutional in the first place? Funny argument.

To say conclusively that Schools can not have any voluntary religious-related activity in them is just wrong. People use public schools for tons of things the community needs and pays taxes for, and regulating this stuff on a federal level seems to me a silly and wasteful use of public resources.

Your definition of 'public resources' seems to mean that any and all 'permitted' religious activities have to be predefined, or else they are all assumed verbotten. This places the burden on the courts to have case after case on ruling all these finer details about whether 'a little' religion is OK, when is too much, where you put the Jesus makes a difference, if you do it on a sunday its different on tuesday... and if they're in the parking lot it's still in the school so they shouldnt do those Buddhist chants before basketball practice, and in fact, you know what, that shot that Hidoshi took? can't call it a hail Mary anymore. Nope. Clearly Endorsement.

This is libertarian? Whatever it is, it's really, really, really stupid, and i'm frankly surprised so many of you have this knee-jerk "NoGod!" thing.

Captain Holly i think made a few points i agree with. The speech issue for me trumps the establishment clause, which i think is generally misread. People came to this country IN ORDER to do their freaky religions that were disallowed at home. The Establishment clause primarily is meant to keep the state from interfering with anyone's religion, not to completely suck any even tiny taint of religion out of the public sphere.

JG

[Kwix]

Stretch,
Anyone who really has a non-personal problem with that baffles me.

I agree. Not being particularly religious I always thought that the kids in my school that did that were a bit "quacky" to begin with but I just steered clear and called it good. If the school sponsored it, say like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, then I took issue with it but otherwise to each his own. That is the beauty of "Free Speech". They have the right to congregate and discuss thier religious views.

Actually, the only recent school-religion problems I have had trouble wrapping my brain around are these:

How should the school handle proselytizing? Technically it is free speach, however the audience is captive by government coercion(education laws). Does this qualify as establishment?

Along the same lines, government paid school vouchers used for Private Religious schools. Is this technically constitutional? I understand that it is usually a State decision but quite often federal funds are diverted into the voucher programs.

[PintofStout]

Gilmore,

My observation is that the folks who bring the lawsuits, etc are not the libertarians. They are more likely to be liberals who relish the idea of using the state power for themselves (regardless of the cause). So arguing about it hardly encourages the state or spends my money. Have a bake sale and set up any statue, or whatever, that you want, but have another bake sale and put it on your own property. Granted this stuff is small potatoes compared to the highway robbery of the federal government, but if anything could be said for most libertarians it would be that they are consistent; so if I gripe about the big stuff, shouldn't I also find fault and gripe about the small stuff, too?

As for question a), yes, I do think it presents a threat. Perhaps not the religious organizations, which I have no figures for how much they donate to campaigns and stuff, but the religious people who are spending the money and influencing the lawmakers are definitlely a threat to me. Every time a politician invokes their diety (usually the most popular) or passes a law based on their particular set of morals, it threatens me. I guess the little nativity scene stuff is just like gloating about the bigger stuff.

B) I doubt a law would do any good in restricting officials from invoking or promoting their diety and fanclub of such while in an official capacity. As a citizen they can preach and talk all they want, but in their official capacity it should be nixed. I don't know if it would or should be illegal, but it is surely in bad taste (not to mention good politics). Perhaps the best solution is to remove that "official" and "public" capacity, rather than passing more laws (too extreme for this crowd?).

[Eric the .5b]

OK, what if a group of kids want to get together to play chess or discuss some secular topic after school? Would you prohibit them from doing so, because of all the extra money necessary to keep the school open?

I don't think that school should be public in the first place. 🙂 That's not a high issue on my priorities, so while I do find subsidizing the chess club objectionable on principle, it's nothing that bothers me.

[Eric the .5b]

"Is it right for a marble copy of the "Ten Commandments" to be displayed in an offical manner along side Lady Justice? No as that is an explicit bias toward the "Judeo-Christian" religions.""

This is really funny 🙂 Actually dude, I'd counter that with the fact that "Lady Justice" is in fact Themis

"GILMORE", are you quite right in the head? You really can't tell the difference between a holy-roller Republican putting up a list of religious statements (including one asserting the inferiority of other religions) and an image of a figure from a dead religion?

"A public school meets none of these criteria."

I love it. You guys keep proving my point.

"Public schools should not be used for the public. They can exchange ideas, but not in their free time, and not using the electricity that we're already using to allow basketball practice to run late. Only sanitized state sanctioned ideas can be exchanged. Anything else constitutes the President becoming a Grand Patriarch and we all have to shave our heads and bow to his image 3 times a day."

Disregard my first question.

I know the Lemon test, and I still dont see how allowing people to use public resources they pay for in activities that are voluntary and completely innocuous constitudes 'endorsement'. You did add in the 'if they didnt allow *others* than it would be unconstitutional" Thats correct. But wasnt your starting point that, hey, it's unconstitutional in the first place? Funny argument.

As I said in the comment you pretended to read, there's nothing wrong with a religious group meeting in a public park or any place actually open to the public. However, I can't grab a few friends and play hoops on the local high school's basketball court. Schools aren't open to the public, and anyone without an official reason to be in one can be arrested for trespassing.

And if we can dispense with the bullshit, I'd love to see a public school that wanted to let a Christian group meet and would have no problem with letting a Jewish or militant atheist group meet.

[MP]

How should the school handle proselytizing? Technically it is free speach, however the audience is captive by government coercion(education laws). Does this qualify as establishment?

It depends on who is doing it and when. Context is key.

Along the same lines, government paid school vouchers used for Private Religious schools. Is this technically constitutional? I understand that it is usually a State decision but quite often federal funds are diverted into the voucher programs.

Yes. See Zelman v. Simmons-Harris.

[PintofStout]

I don't think there is as much of a "knee-jerk 'No God!'" thing as you are percieving. I think the knee-jerk is about so-called public arenas the government has no business in anyway. That is the libertarian response. The pious Atheists tend to yell "No god!," but not so much the libertarians. Once you go down that public arenas route, many, many things go wrong that could be solved by turning around where you first made the wrong turn instead of driving on looking for that "shortcut" that makes everything alright again.

[crimethink]

I don't think that school should be public in the first place. 🙂

There go the goalposts! 😉

That's not a high issue on my priorities, so while I do find subsidizing the chess club objectionable on principle, it's nothing that bothers me.

So, you would allow a secular afterschool meeting but disallow a (voluntary) religious one. That would be a blatant violation of free exercise.

[Kwix]

Gilmore,
I'd counter that with the fact that "Lady Justice" is in fact Themis, a Greek pre-Hellenic nature deitie born to Uranus and Ge. The government has established a ancient greek mythology bias!

Technically, you are correct and it should probably be removed even though most people do not equate it with a religion (becuase it has been dead for 2000 years) to avoid placing the fear of Zeus in you.

... not using the electricity that we're already using to allow basketball practice to run late. Only sanitized state sanctioned ideas can be exchanged.

This is conflation. There is not constitutional law that says "Congress shall make no law establishing sports programs, nor abridging the right to play sports".

There is also nothing inherently wrong with teaching, say a "comparative religions" class with an open discussion on all religions. But when a school specifically sponsors and endorses, or refuses to sponsor a specific religious group then it crosses that line. As I said before, there is nothing wrong with students meeting on thier own on "public" property during normal hours without government endorsement.

[James Anderson Merritt]

ME: A "libertarian" who endorses the inevitable killing of innocents as a means of "protecting" himself or innocents in his neighborhood -- purchasing his liberty with the blood of those who have done him no harm and who do not threaten him -- is no libertarian.

ERIC THE 0.5 B: That would pretty much require that anyone who ever supported any war, anywhere, can't be a libertarian.

If you were an anal-retentive literal extremist, I suppose that would be true. And I suppose, to exclude reductio ad absurdum arguments such as yours, I should have said, "to the extent that someone ... blah-blah ... he abandons libertarianism."

Truly, Eric the 0.5 B, "it is people like you what cause unrest." 🙂

A true libertarian naturally wants minimum government, and this also entails minimum warfare. You may be right: a perfect libertarian might completely eschew war. None of us are perfect. Even the best real-world libertarians might tolerate, endorse, or even participate in SOME war, or some aspect of warfare, usually in direct defense against or retalliation for a REAL (not alleged or proposed) attack.

But you'll have to work a lot harder than you have to convince me that the pretexts for modern wars have been properly sufficient to earn the support of people in the real-world who can honestly call themselves libertarians.

To make my earlier point clear, I was speaking of pre-emptive action: taking the fight THERE so it won't come HERE. Sweeping some alleged nest of bad guys clean to prevent a future attack, indiscriminately killing many more innocents in the process than might have been killed on our side by the hypothetical attack, is the approach of craven, idiot bullies, not libertarians.

[Jamie Kelly]

The true heart of the issue is government schools. If government schools did not exist, then there would be no First Amendment conflicts. Get rid of the public schools, and we get rid of the free speech and establishment issues. Then we'd all go back to worrying plastic Jesus outside the courthouse, and the Ten Suggestions inside.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Jason Ligon: I actually think that libertarianism has a LOT to say about foreign policy, especially as it constrains foreign policy choices by limiting the amount of resources available to the government, and the lengths to which the government can go to engender domestic compliance with and support of war. Libertarianism -- synonymous with minimum government -- doesn't rule out war altogether, but rigorous observance of libertarian principles will drastically reduce or eliminate the incidence of elective war, and severely curtail the magnitude of wars that can be fought, except in the most dire, defensive circumstances.

Because an aggressive conventional foreign policy approach has blowback of the type that leads to reductions of liberties at home, a government that rigorously observes libertarian principle must be more subtle and indirect in its policies -- smarter, for lack of a better word -- the better to maximize domestic liberty, even in times of peril.

From where I sit, the problem seems to be the aforementioned lack of convictions and the courage of them. Our leaders don't understand liberty. They don't value it. This is probably because the people don't understand it or value it properly, either. Several commentators (including TJ Rodgers and Ron Paul, to name just two) have pointed out in tecent weeks that the US has gone through some pretty bad patches in the past, without giving up on the ideal of liberty by way of purchasing the fool's gold of security. If liberty were the primary value -- something that was beyond discussion -- we could find ways of conducting our domestic and foreign policies to maximize liberty to a point far in excess of what we enjoy now, in the process promoting peace and prosperity. Obviously, we only give lip-service to liberty, just as the GOP has long only given lip-service to the goal of smaller, more-accountable government, and the Demos have long given mostly lip-service to civil liberties.

Jason, I think of libertarianism as a lock. It accepts a key of a certain shape. If you fashion such a key, the lock and door open easily. But some people just want to open the door; they don't care about using a key and they pick their way in, bust down the door, or take the hinges off. Nothing prevents them from doing these things, but there is clearly a proper way to open the door. Libertarianism may not speak directly to limitations on foreign policy, but at least it seems to me that any given foreign policy can be judged as "more" or "less" libertarian -- more or less close in shape to the key that opens the lock.

[happyjuggler0]

Ok, here's my personal definition of libertarian:

Libertarian: You should be able to do anything that does not infringe upon the ability of others' right to do what they want to do.

The government should be confined to only things that are commons problems. One such commons problem is enforcing the above right from predators.

Thus, a total lack of state is not libertarian. Such a "state", for lack of a better word, is anarchy, or gang rule, and too many people who can't figure out how to counter libertarian arguments like to claim libertarians are anarchists. We aren't. Libertarians want a government to protect them from those who would violate our liberties, and to little, if anything, else.

Nor is a state that takes your stuff and gives it to me a libertarian state. Democrats as a group (and too many Republicans despite their rhetoric) like to violate liberty in this manner.

Nor is a state that tells consenting adults they are not allowed to do something that does not involve unwilling participants or subjects a libertarian state. Republicans as a group (and too many Democrats despite their rhetoric) like to violate liberty in this manner.

[Kwix]

James Anderson Merritt,
A true libertarian naturally wants minimum government, and this also entails minimum warfare. You may be right: a perfect libertarian might completely eschew war. None of us are perfect. Even the best real-world libertarians might tolerate, endorse, or even participate in SOME war, or some aspect of warfare, usually in direct defense against or retalliation for a REAL (not alleged or proposed) attack.

This is beautiful. I agree that sometimes war is inevitable. During WWII, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a direct invasion for which our military should have, and rightly did so, retaliate. Answering a call for help from a nation under attack, such as Britan in WWII or Kuwait in 1991 is noble and valid.

Pre-emptivley striking a nation for thier percieved "danger" is a bad game to play. If we invade nations because they "may" possess WMD (nuclear in these examples) then we should have invaded all nations that we know to have WMD first. So, before Iraq, our line of invasion should have been Russia, UK, France, India, Pakistan and China. Then we should have moved on more "credible" threats to world stability like Isreal, N. Korea, and Iran before finally invading Iraq. So, what we have done is effectively demolish a country for something they did not do and for which we had already green-lighted other countries to do.

[House]

A newbie question. If we actually lived in Libertopia, and the state was drastically reduced in size would there really be a significant public sphere in which one could exercise free speech?

In theory there would be no public parks, roads, schools, airwaves, etc. Wouldn't speech then be then be limited to what the owners of the places allowed?

[GILMORE]

Comment by: Kwix

"Publicly funded establishments (schools, libraries, courts, congress, police services, military, etc.) may not constitutionally support or endorse ANY religion. No further laws needed."

Totally agree. What we clearly read differently is what constitutes "support or endorsement"

If a School principal makes the kids all sing, "Goat headed six eyed satan! Our souls belong to theeee, alala lalala la!", then ritually violate themselves with crucifixes, i think that probably crosses the line.

What people in the community do/pay for themselves as a voluntary free exercise of their freedom of speech in the context of what constutes a public commons, using resources that they pay taxes for and have rights towards, then no, i'm not sure that has anything to do with the establishment clause at all.

My personal feeling is that the government has no business getting involved in deciding what is/isnt 'free speech' in the public commons. I dont think the establishment clause 'overlaps' and trumps it.

Neither did some guys in black robes, in this one instance:

http://churchstatelaw.com/cases/mccrearyvstone.asp

Read the "West Notes", which nicely summarize some of the details about of the application of the establishment clause under the Lemon test. The ones i like best are here:

""
[7] Constitutional Law 84.1

92,84.1 Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 92k84(1))

Primary-effect prong of Lemon test for determining whether governmental action violates establishment clause of the First Amendment is violated only if governmental action has direct and immediate effect of advancing religion. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.

[8] Constitutional Law 84.1

92k84.1 Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 92k84(1))

Governmental action that provides only indirect, remote or incidental benefits to a religion does not violate establishment clause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend.

I only cited this example cause it's the one mah daddy was involved in (big up, pops!), but the point is, there is undoubtably plenty of room in the appropriate application of the establishment clause for things that people often wrongfully assume are 'violations'.

It surprises me a little that 'libertarians' are so quick to blindly endorse wastefula and instrusive government restriction on individuals voluntarily engaging in free speech.

and why do you all hate baby jesus?! Baby jesus wuvs you 🙂
JG

[GILMORE]

me=
"I gather from what you guys are saying, the French 'banning headscarves' thing was a GOOD idea?"

fyodor=
"WTF?? How do you gather that?? Actually, when that first happened, folks in these parts were rather pissed off about it, as I recall."

Me again =

Well, cause i actually do remember that...and i was curious about how that outrage meshed logically with sentiments that i read here that that any 'religious' activity at all in a school, say, is a horrible anti-constitutional outrage.

Does that make more sense? I'm just curious exactly how less religious our public life has to be before the Libertarian standard is satisfied.

Funny side note: I grew up partly in a very very rich jewish suburb, and we got all the jewish holidays off, which was pretty awesome. Then on St Patricks day, i noticed that there was a paper leprechaun hung above the junior high cafeteria door, with a bubble coming out of his mouth, saying "Mazel Tov!"

i dont know if that's unconstitutional or not, but its really funny in retrospect. I got a little indignant about it a at the time. like, Hey man, thats supposed to be MY myth, and you're screwing it up! the 12yr old irish boy in me was offended by the tarnished ritual sanctity of a leprechaun. 🙂 "My tax money should never go to such support of other people's myths!"

JG

[Ken Shultz]

In theory there would be no public parks, roads, schools, airwaves, etc. Wouldn't speech then be then be limited to what the owners of the places allowed?

Is there evidence suggesting that private ownership curtails free speech more so than government?

...are public schools bastions of free speech? Is censorship a big problem on pay radio?

[GILMORE]

House =

"If we actually lived in Libertopia, and the state was drastically reduced in size would there really be a significant public sphere in which one could exercise free speech?"

Very interesting question. Probably deserves its own thread.

Heh, Libertopia. I like that. Reminds me of Duck Soup.

"Hail, Hail, Freedonia!"

JG

[House]

Ken Shultz
"Is there evidence suggesting that private ownership curtails free speech more so than government?"

My point is that, in theory, the government cannot curtail free speech whereas private owners would surely be entitled to so if they are so inclined. I'm thinking more in terms of protest speeches, marching, picketing, etc. It seems unlikely to me that private entities would allow things like that on their property.

[GILMORE]

Eric the .50cent =

"As I said in the comment you pretended to read.."

peace brother. I seek only knowledge.

"... Schools aren't open to the public, and anyone without an official reason to be in one can be arrested for trespassing."

I dont see what you mean. Actually, many public schools are open to the community after hours for all kinds of stuff. 'offical', if thats what an 'after school club' can be called. At least where I lived. I played hoops with friends. I even learned to play dungeons and dragons once. (I cheated) If they'd had a discussion group on the Koran, i'd probably have gone. I like religious texts.

Or, are you saying, you think people SHOULD be arrested for 'trespassing' schools, when engaging in any activity not sanctioned by the Federal Department of AfterSchool Activities?

"And if we can dispense with the bullshit..."

aw, why stop now? 🙂

"... I'd love to see a public school that wanted to let a Christian group meet and would have no problem with letting a Jewish or militant atheist group meet."

? But arent you already arguing that ANY religious activity, even if multidemoninational, cannot be constitutional in a public school? How would we ever find that love if you're saying we can't do it at all in the first place?

I'm really not trying to be a nudge here, I'm just failing to appreciate the Libertarian basis for people's stated feelings about religion in public places. It smells kind of fishy to me that people here are 'pro regulation' about at least this one thing.

in any case, adios!

JG

[Ken Shultz]

My point is that, in theory, the government cannot curtail free speech whereas private owners would surely be entitled to so if they are so inclined.

In Libertopia, there's no problem with government curtailing free speech. Private ownership of media being what it is here and now, have you noticed a big problem with private ownership curtailing free speech?

Whose perspective, because it's private, gets the shaft in print media?

I'm thinking more in terms of protest speeches, marching, picketing, etc. It seems unlikely to me that private entities would allow things like that on their property.

I suppose we should get a little more clear about what Libertopia looks like. Libetopia, to my eye is a mini-state as opposed to anarchy...

I'm trying to think of a good reason why private property owners should be subjected to protest speeches, marching, picketing, etc.

...protests against government, I suspect, would be much lighter in Libetopia. ...and most of those things, when directed at government, would be done as a form of civil disobedience in Libertopia, I think. I don't think the citizens of Libetopia would approve of official permits for protests.

Still, if people want to protest the Libertopian government, or, indeed, the behavior of some private citizen or group, they'll be free to do so on their own property. I'm not trying to be flippant here; I'm just tryin' to think of what's wrong with that. ...I can't think of anything.

[Ken Shultz]

I'm trying to think of a good reason why private property owners should be subjected to protest speeches, marching, picketing, etc.

That may have been clearer if I had written, "I'm trying to think of a good reason why private property owners should be subjected to protest speeches, marching, picketing, etc. on their own property."

[Kwix]

Gilmore,
Well, cause i actually do remember that...and i was curious about how that outrage meshed logically with sentiments that i read here that that any 'religious' activity at all in a school, say, is a horrible anti-constitutional outrage.

Personal expression vs. government sponsored religion.

Scarves on Heads, Crucifixes around necks and a Star of David embroidered on a backpack are all "personal expression" and should be allowed in school. If you need to pray to Allah 5 times a day and 3 of those are during school hours it should be allowed for you to excuse yourself from class for 5 minutes and pray. Nobody is contending that these 'religious activities' are 'anti-constitutional'.

In fact your original argument to this started with a question to Jamie Kelly:
Why should 'the complete division between church and state' be a libertarian ideal?
Which you qualified with:
I would have thought the libertarian position on religion would be 'go for it'. Do as you will. That religion is a form of speech, and is protected by the first amendment.
...
I don't believe in needing to have all public life in some kind of 'god-free' vacuum where people's metaphysical assumptions are essentially gagged. I don't think that is consistent with liberty. Let people invoke the almighty all they want.

As Jamie stated and everybody else here seconded, the issue is not religious freedom. It is state endorsed religion of any kind. You just can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that when the government endorses a religion, any religion, it does so at the risk of de-legitimizing any other religion. People as individuals may espouse any religious views they want but Government Institutions may not as they must remain 'god-free'(as you put it). By maintaining a total separation of "church and state" you insure that even the most minor of 'metaphysical assumptions' will not be 'gagged'. People 'invoking the almighty' is fantastic, the Government doing so is not.

[Kwix]

Ken Shultz,
I could be wrong here but I think what House was thinking of was a completely (or 99.9999%) private society. No public roads, just private thoroughfares, no public parks just private property, etc. In that set of circumstances I could see where private property owners could effectively curtail "free speech".

Take the example of the "company town" where the company owns everything. I highly doubt that even on the streets or in somebody's rented yard that the company would put up with disparaging remarks. Granted, right now people have the option of moving from the "company town" to a more open society but in 'Little Libertopia' where everything is privately owned that would not be an option.

That or I am wrong.

[James Anderson Merritt]

KWIX: "This is beautiful. I agree that sometimes war is inevitable. During WWII, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a direct invasion for which our military should have, and rightly did so, retaliate. Answering a call for help from a nation under attack, such as Britan in WWII or Kuwait in 1991 is noble and valid."

ME: Thanks for the kind words. We appear to agree on pre-emptive strikes, but I must confess that I have some problems with even the Pearl Harbor situation, and certainly the Kuwait situation.

Regarding Pearl Harbor, there is a pretty good body of evidence now, to demonstrate that Mr. Roosevelt wanted us in WWII, and maneuvered the Japanese into a situation where they were FAR more motivated to strike us first than might otherwise have been the case. I don't excuse the Japanese for the attack, of course, nor do I blame Roosevelt for it, directly. On the other hand, a different foreign policy would not have boxed in the Japanese to the point that they felt a first strike was their only option for victory in an inevitable war (documents show that the Japanese leadership was very divided on that point, down to the wire). A government that sincerely and rigorously observed libertarian principles would have concentrated on finding a way to keep the peace, to entangle potential enemies by making close trading partners out of them, etc. It doesn't appear that we went in that direction, again, because the goal of our leaders wasn't our own liberty, but rather having a good excuse to rush to the aid of Britain and other Allied powers.

Which brings me to your other example. I have a real hard time believing that our government is chartered to rush to the aid of ANY foreign power, unless we have, for good reasons, declared war against a mutual enemy. Roosevelt knew that most Americans felt similarly in the 1940s: in his calculus, we thus NEEDED Pearl Harbor to allow for a declaration of war against Japan, which automatically put us at war with Germany, providing the pretext for us to partner-up with Britain and the other Allies in the European theatre.

In modern times, however, with the standing military well-established and nominally under the control of the President, our federal government maintains resources that are not only available for arbitrary deployment, but NEED to be deployed frequently enough to keep morale high and battlefield skills sharp. If we didn't have the military infrastructure, there would have to be a DAMNED good reason to raise an army for deployment in the defense of foreign powers, in the absence of any direct threat to or attack on us. Most probably, most such initiatives would fail miserably. But, since we DO have the standing military and all of its apparatus, it seems almost "shameful" to some, if we refuse the call for help from some nation that is regarded as our "friend." But to answer such calls is to put Americans in harm's way, to inspire "blowback" that could harm Americans in the future (and lead to higher taxes and curtailment of civil liberties at home in the name of "security"), and to deplete resources that American taxpayers must replenish by giving up some of their time and labor -- all of this over the objections of a sizeable number of Americans, and not just those whose oxen are gored. But speaking of those latter Americans, how "noble and valid" is it to gore those oxen over the protests of the owners?

Early in the history of our nation, some of our most highly placed officials clearly repudiated the idea that the US should be a global warrior for liberty, bringing "freedom" to foreign lands at swordpoint or gunpoint. In the 20th century, our so-called leaders deliberately ignored this traditional wisdom and did a 180-degree turnabout, leading to ongoing, massive intervention on a global scale, and eventually to the tinderbox circumstances in which we now find ourselves. I have a very hard time understanding what is "noble and valid" about turning up the heat on a pressure-cooker.

To pre-emptively address evisceration from the neocons and "conservatarians": No, I don't think that if we "play nice" we can expect the bad guys of the world to "play nice" with us, but I do think that we can establish a reputation for fair play that will keep all but the most cloistered and closed-minded foreigners from taking anti-american propaganda at face value, thus making it harder for our enemies to recruit allies and attain support. When things are harder for our enemies, they are easier for us.

I don't think that direct attacks on us or threats against us should be ignored, but I also don't agree with indiscriminate retaliation, or even worse, indiscriminate pre-emption. I also think that our policies should seek to minimize the likelihood of direct attacks, or the motivations and circumstances that make threats likely.

[House]

"Private ownership of media being what it is here and now, have you noticed a big problem with private ownership curtailing free speech?"

I don't see a significant problem currently but that begs the question, to the extent you don't see free speech being curtailed, what is the percieved benefit of making any modifications to the current system.

"Still, if people want to protest the Libertopian government, or, indeed, the behavior of some private citizen or group, they'll be free to do so on their own property. I'm not trying to be flippant here; I'm just tryin' to think of what's wrong with that. ...I can't think of anything."

How about renters - non-property owners who may have something to protest? They simply have no venue to do so due to lack of economic means?

I'm just trying to figure out how liberty is actually expanded for most people by the reduction in the size of government.

[Ken Shultz]

To my mind, the answer to the kind of curtailment you're talking about--and "curtailment" doesn't seem the right word--would have to be likeminded people with property.

I think it unlikely that people with grievances wouldn't be able find private avenues to air them in Libertopia. ...If we ever get there, I suppose we'll have to cross that bridge--and if, indeed, it becomes a problem. ...Perhaps there might evolve some sort of private "civil" disobedience.

Like I said, I expect Libertopia to have police, a legal system, congress, etc., and I suspect protestors would find private avenues to express themselves effectively. ...Perhaps with something like the Nature Conservancy--only for protest. ...but it's an interesting albeit academic question.

[James Anderson Merritt]

House: Private broadcast media are far more controlled by government than print media or internet media (so far) are. The contortions and concentrations in the media business have come about for many of the same reasons that Enron was able to game the mis-named "deregulated" electricity system in California. In each case, government regulation created a stunted, mutated market, the operating rules and risk/reward structure of which encouraged perverse outcomes.

You can print up and disribute a newsletter inside of a day. You can set up a basic webpage in minutes. Neither activity is prohibitively expensive, even for an individual of modest means. You cannot put a radio or television station on the air without a major expense and investment of time and effort, despite the fact that you can order a brand new, moderately powerful "radio station in a box" for the cost of a very old and battered used car. The sticking point is that government acts as gatekeeper, judging some as worthy to have licenses and others not.

Sometimes, as is the case with Digital TV, government acts as slumlord, converting affordable rentals into overpriced condominiums. Occupants of traditional analog TV channels are being forced to vacate those channels in just a few years, to switch over to digital facilities and transmission if they can, and go dark if not. Consumers must either buy new digital TV sets, or adapters to convert the digital signals into analog form and feed them to the oldstyle receivers. No market clamor for digital TV motivates this very expensive switch. Rather, the government seeks to auction off the old spectrum space for such things as additional cell-phone channels.

In a real free-market, would-be broadcasters would be able to set up shop in any vacant spectrum space, or venture out -- in partnership with receiver manufacturers -- to open up new territory or find ways to improve usage of existing space. This would most closely approximate the situation we now have with printed media, and justify the recognition that electronic media are just as eligible as the printed media for constiutionally-protected freedom of the press.

There is plenty of freedom of speech and press in streaming radio and video, blogs, zine-sites, and podcasts on the internet. Up until now, government has not been able to make the "scarce resource" argument it originally made to appropriate the broadcast spectrum, so the internet has remained remarkably free of government interference, but government will find a way to assert authority, count on it. On the other hand, even the broadcast spectrum has not resembled a "scarce resource" for the past couple of decades. There are hundreds of TV stations across the US and thousands of radio stations -- numbers that compare favorably against daily and weekly newspapers. Should government increase regulation of newspapers because they represent a "scare resource" now? Or should regulation of broadcast outlets be further relaxed? I favor the latter.

[John Rhoads]

I certainly see a lot of bashing of the LP here...I'm not really sure why. Granted, I hate all political parties on principal (it seems to me that they encourage a lack of independent thought)...but aside from the fact that it's a political party I'm not sure what the complaint is. They certainly make some poor decisions, but on the whole it seems like if they're better than every other political party (and they are certainly more libertarian than any other party) then an outright rejection of the lp for a libertarian seems silly to me. If you are a libertarian and you object to part of the lp platform, it seems to me that you'll have a better chance of effecting a postivie change in the lp than you will in the republicans or democrats (or other "third" parties for that matter). I understand criticizing the lp, but I don't really know why a libertarian would ridicule it.

[GILMORE]

KWix spake:

"You just can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that when the government endorses a religion, any religion, it does so at the risk of de-legitimizing any other religion."

My head is not stretchy, but this much i grasp.

"People as individuals may espouse any religious views they want but Government Institutions may not as they must remain 'god-free'(as you put it)"

Sure.

the questions i've been asking have been centered on where the lines of 'espousal/endorsement' are being drawn here. I understand what endorsement is. But there is a lot of spread between what is, and what isnt, and the majority view here is, 'almost anything' seems to be endorsement. so = anything that smells like god's gotta go. I dont think that reasoning is either particularly libertarian, or based in constitutional law.

Some here have suggested that if a religious group wanted to use a school classroom after hours, that it would be a violation. That if a temporary display of a holiday religious symbol happended to use public electricity, that this would be a violation. That if a potentially 'historical' item like the 10 commandments were posted near government buildings, that it would be a violation. Etc.

My points have been that in many of these cases, the supreme court has considered them Ok in various contexts, and i dont see why we'd need to further extend government reach in this area.

The sentiment i've seen here is that we need even further, and more rigorous limitations on religious speech in public, and stronger enforcement of an extremely narrow reading of the establishment clause.

This started with someone saying, "we need to separate church and state 'completely'". I was surprised and wondered what that meant, seeing how i dont see any particular problem with religious speech in general, and consider the governments intrusion into free speech excessive as it is.

I'm also surprised to hear rhetoric like, 'endorsement (defined incredibly broadly such that any community activity is endorsement of something) 'delegitimizes' other religions'.

Isnt that the kind of thing liberals moan about? That we have to restrict speech that may potentially hurt someones feelings? I dont feel that. Treating religious expression as somehow dangerous or threatening and having lawyers go apeshit over the tiniest thing, is to me basically delegitimizing to religions in general. I personally feel that "tolerance" in the public sphere doesnt require creating laws the proscribe when and where and how people are allowed to engage in activity that someone else defines as religious.

Although, i'd would like to be able to buy beer in some states where they ban sales on Sunday. That is an outrage! God must not interfere with beer, football, and laudry day.

JG

[happyjuggler0]

Although, i'd would like to be able to buy beer in some states where they ban sales on Sunday. That is an outrage! God must not interfere with beer, football, and laudry day.

Special government laws (such as alcohol bans of any kind, regulated mall hours etc.) on Sundays are a clear violation of the 1st amendment. Everyone knows the basis for these laws is that Sunday is supposed to be a day of rest, and damned if "they" are going to let you violate that religious edict. They use escuses like needing to give the entrepenuer a day off etc., but those are excuses, not the reason for Sunday laws.

Besides, prohibiting beer sales to adults at any time is also a clear un-American act. 🙂

[Rick Barton]

it's an insult aimed at self-described small-government conservatives and libertarians who don't seem troubled by the expansions of White House police power, and who reliably back the current president.

It's an insult aimed at a damn near null set. No actual libertarian or small government conservative would *reliably* back the current president since he is a big, no let me make that, FRIGGIN HUGE GOVERNMENT guy. Bush is a liberal.

[joshua corning]

My favorite part about these libertarian christian discussions is that no one seems to mention liberal democracy was an invention of christian sociaties.

"If the christians take over they are going to take away all my rights!!"

Kind of funny to actually read it isn't it

I am an athiest but I am in no way scared of the christians taking away my rights

But I am a bit fearful of the statist godless left taking them away.

The real fear Christians should have is that if the US does embrase christainity as the only one true religion then you can mark that as the begining of the end of christaianity in the US...hell just look at Europe...they all had state sponsered religion (the king of england was and is the english pope) and no one there belives in god.

[quasibill]

"I accept a role for the state in negotiating with the heads of other states. All of that is funded on the backs of people who may or may not agree with a specific outcome. "

So, it's just a matter of wanting other people to pay for your boogeymen, but not wanting them to force you to pay for theirs?

Yep. That's as consistent as calling for the assassination of a head of state when one of the commandments of your religion is "do not murder".

Again, minarchy can be justified on libertarian principles in that the government gives to the individual who is taxed an equal or greater benefit back (we won't even get into your glee at killing innocents that don't happen to have the luck of U.S. citizenship, so long as it decreases the possibility of your future death from one source from 1 in 1 billion to 1 in 1.1 billion).

Aggressive wars against countries that don't imminently threaten us do NOT satisfy the requirement. Even further, social engineering projects on the other side of the planet can NEVER satisfy that requirement.

So even as a minarchist, libertarian ideals say much, much more than you're willing to admit, because you'd much rather pick and choose to conform to your pre-existing prejudices...

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

That piece verged on dribbling it was so bad.

I am a libertarian. However I do believe it is hard to be either type of libertarian if you are dead. And the Muzzies want you dead...sticking your head in the sand will not help you.

We really don't have enough numbers in either the UK or the US to be saying who or who isn't a real libertarian. Factionalism is the reason we have no power or influence and probably won't for a long time to come.

[quasibill]

Talk about being so poor it 'dribbles' a misunderstanding of what the base libertarian principle is:

" However I do believe it is hard to be either type of libertarian if you are dead"

Then buy yourself a gun, get together with a group of like-minded bigots, and create your own military, and fund and finance your little wars of convenience yourself.

How much more libertarian can it get?

[K. Toishi]

An op-ed from today's WSJ criticizing "big government."

The road to big government reaches a dead end at Jack Abramoff

[Dave W.]

I think the more useful distinction is between what I would term process libertarians and what I call budget libertarians.

For example, I am a budget libertarian. I believe in slashing ss and the military budget (to, say, 10X China's). I think this will free up a lot of tax money and thereby make individuals more free. Although I don't want to get rid of public schools, I would put those people into the budget libertarian camp as well. Anybody who primary drive is to reduce aggregate tax burdens (everybody wants their own taxes slashed, budlib or not).

A process libertarian is more worried about state rules and reg. Abortion, drugs, crime, punishment, police powers, frivolous tort suits, immigration, etc, etc. the proclibs want to make or repeal laws in order to make individuals more free. While I like to think I have some common ground with the proclibs (I love *true* capitalist market solutions), that ain't me.

SelfServing statement: I wish there were more budlibs here and fewer proclibs.

[GILMORE]

Josh Corning =

re: statist godless left being more of a threat to liberty than bible beaters or whomever

I hear that, and I absolutely agree.

I think the prevailing view here regarding the establishment clause turns out to be much closer to the hyper-liberal belief that it provides freedom FROM religion, rather than simply limited to freedom OF religion, which is what the case law has clearly demonstrated over the years. This is really the center of it I think.

I probably agree with people about a lot of the basic things that really DO qualify as endorsement. But I have been surprised at the number of people who think that symbols on public land, students using classrooms etc. - basically, harmless exercises of speech, not by government, but by people in a community - are somehow unquestionably de facto violations.

It's worth mentioning that one of the things people cited as ?a worrying intrusion of religiosity into government? (hand on bible oath) was actually identified and pre-empted in the constitution:

Article VI
??. all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.?

14th president Franklin Pierce actually decided to ?affirm? the oath, and put his hand on law books rather than a bible?mainly because his particular strain of Christianity was so orthodox that he thought the ritual was blasphemous. ? (slavery of course was OK for him, but swearing on bibles not)

It?s worth noting that many of the interest groups that helped introduce the self-consciously secular aspects of the constitution were (you guessed it), deeply religious sects. If I remember correctly, Quakers had some significant input into the constitution as well as state laws in colonies.

I don?t know how true this is, but according to one professor of law, George Washington apparently spontaneously added the words, ?so help me god? at the end of the presidential confirmation ceremony all on his own, and it just became a popular closing quote. Copy cats.

I think the few vestiges of religion that people see in government operations and in public rituals and displays aren?t so much a sign of the encroachment of religion into public life, or are significant of any ?slippery slope? to some kind of fundamentalist takeover, but rather just evidence of how all authority likes to use ritual & appeals to the invisible to confirm some basis for their authority. It?s been going on for millennia. It reminds me of the quote by the politician Crassus in the film Spartacus.

Julius Caesar: Rome is the mob.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: No! Rome is an eternal thought in the mind of God.
Julius Caesar: I'd no idea you'd grown religious.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: [laughs] It doesn't matter. If there were no gods at all I'd still revere them.

[Eric the .5b]

So, you would allow a secular afterschool meeting but disallow a (voluntary) religious one. That would be a blatant violation of free exercise.

You're trying to tell a libertarian that not using government resources to support a religious gathering violates the free exercise of religion.

Why?

[Eric the .5b]

I dont see what you mean. Actually, many public schools are open to the community after hours for all kinds of stuff. 'offical', if thats what an 'after school club' can be called. At least where I lived. I played hoops with friends. I even learned to play dungeons and dragons once. (I cheated) If they'd had a discussion group on the Koran, i'd probably have gone. I like religious texts.

I've never lived in an area where people were allowed to walk onto a school in off the street. If anyone can walk into public schools in your neck of the woods and hang out, there doesn't strike me as being any church/state issue with a religious group just wandering in.

Or, are you saying, you think people SHOULD be arrested for 'trespassing' schools

No, I'm describing the law in many locales where people who aren't students or faculty and who haven't been specifically invited are not permitted in public schools.

But arent you already arguing that ANY religious activity, even if multidemoninational, cannot be constitutional in a public school?

No, I'm saying any religious activity supported or organized by a public school is a violation of the separation of church and state. Anyone interested in this issue knows schools and religious organizations try to sleaze past this point all the time.

I'm just failing to appreciate the Libertarian basis for people's stated feelings about religion in public places. It smells kind of fishy to me that people here are 'pro regulation' about at least this one thing.

It's not a strictly libertarian issue. (Small "l" - big "L" indicates we're talking about a wacky little group of money-squandering seminar-giving silver-swallowing nutballs who still are better than the Greens at getting their party on ballots.)

And it's not pro-regulation of the people, it's pro-restriction of the government. There's nothing wrong with outright prayer or other religious practices in public schools, and it's perfectly legal. It's only a problem when teachers - government employees with power over their students - lead their class in prayers (especially mandatory ones) or devote school resources to the efforts of religious groups.

[GILMORE]

Hey Eric,

We dont need to debate about under what conditions schools (or other state funded facilities) allow people ?to wander in? or not. That?s not the point. The reason the point was made was because someone else here had specifically said something to the tune that ?school property could not be used for any religious purposes at all? because (I assume for using ?state? heat & lighting or something) that was ?a violation? of the establishment clause. I have pointed out more than once that this simply isn?t true under the Lemon test. Citations above included: ?Governmental action that provides only indirect, remote or incidental benefits to a religion does not violate establishment clause?

You say the same thing here = ?I'm saying any religious activity supported or organized by a public school is a violation of the separation of church and state? Reading the case law just does not suggest that this is true. Certainly ?some? religious activity ?supported or organized? could be a violation. But you say ANY? That is simply not the case, and I am surprised that people keep asserting this view with total confidence, despite plenty of rulings that clearly state otherwise. There are many conditions under which schools or other public institutions can offer support to religious groups without violating the clause.

The McCreary case cited above provided a clear outline of what is required for something to violate the establishment clause. It was the case (well, Lynch was, but they were related), where O?connor provided the ?refinement? of the test which is still used in most supreme court cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test
an o?connors refinement of it.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/eclause3.htm.

A main point to digest is this : ?the effect prong of the Lemon test is properly interpreted not to require invalidation of a government practice merely because it in fact causes, even as a primary effect, advancement or inhibition of religion...What is crucial is that the government practice not have the effect of communicating a message of government endorsement or disapproval of religion.? There is also the ?Entaglement? thing, which adds another dimension of flexibility, in cases where the government will not intervene because it would require the government to start regulating things ad infinitum. Thats what my joke above about the Federal Department of After School Programs was about.

??.or devote school resources to the efforts of religious groups?

Again ?I think you go to far making statements like this. Law requires that someone has to actively trying to promote a single religion to the exclusion of others, etc etc. There are certainly conditions under which a school (or other state resources) could offer support to religious groups (and other groups), so long as there is no explicit endorsement, approval or disapproval, or excessive entanglement.

JG

[Eric the .5b]

We dont need to debate about under what conditions schools (or other state funded facilities) allow people ?to wander in? or not. That?s not the point.... The reason the point was made was because someone else here had specifically said something to the tune that ?school property could not be used for any religious purposes at all? because (I assume for using ?state? heat & lighting or something) that was ?a violation? of the establishment clause.

Who and what? You're challenging enough to follow when you're addressing my points. But you're mistaken. There are entirely different issues at stake when we're talking about what people can do in open public places and what the government actively helps them do among people who are compelled to be present.

You say the same thing here = ?I'm saying any religious activity supported or organized by a public school is a violation of the separation of church and state? Reading the case law just does not suggest that this is true.

If we're debating case law, perhaps not. You had appeared to be asking for what people think and why. If you stick around, you might discover that some libertarians here actually disagree with current law on some subjects.

I think you go to far making statements like this. Law requires that...

Again, are you asking libertarians for what they think or asking for a legal brief?

[Jeff R.]

The problem is that any honest libertarian must be Trotskyite, aiming for global liberty and not dismissing the liberty interests of people currently living in statist dystopia out of a mystical respect for lines drawn on some map somewhere. The Stalinist-Libertarian goal of liberty in One Country is both unattainible and immoral.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Jeff R. misstates, "The problem is that any honest libertarian must be Trotskyite, aiming for global liberty and not dismissing the liberty interests of people currently living in statist dystopia out of a mystical respect for lines drawn on some map somewhere. The Stalinist-Libertarian goal of liberty in One Country is both unattainible and immoral."

It isn't dishonest to want to draw some of those lines of your own on a map, to define an area in which you will guarantee liberty. It isn't dishonest to pay less attention to what is going on elsewhere in the world, and concentrate on cultivating your own garden. It is, in fact, REALISTIC to do so.

It is a huge ambition, to try to maintain liberty within one's own country, and rarely attained for very long. To attempt to bring liberty to places elsewhere in the world at sword/gunpoint is foolhardy -- folly -- as we have seen over and over in history.

Electing not to interfere elsewhere neither invalidates one's libertarian stance, nor renders one an isolationist pacifist. Individuals can decide that they want to take libertarianism out in the world and promote it in places where it doesn't already exist. But a nation founded on libertarian principles minds its own business, because the national government does not control resources and people as a king or dictator might. It is instead the servant of its millions of sovereign citizens, and can only do as much as they allow.

[GILMORE]

Eric .5b esq =

"There are entirely different issues at stake when we're talking about what people can do in open public places and what the government actively helps them do among people who are compelled to be present."

Agreed.

But, you dont think schools are 'open, public places?' Even when they offer plenty of access to people who arent doing 'god stuff'? There can be a chess club but not a bible club? What public resources are supposed to be open, and what closed? that green swath across from town hall can't have a nativity, but it can be used for easter egg hunts? greek myths are ok because they're 'dead', but 2000yr old abrahamic stuff must be restricted?

Whats been mixed up here is whether passive support/equal access constitutes 'endorsement' (which i say it is not).

Theres been little clear exchange on this specific point.

Your statement above that 'use of schools' in ANY capacity is a violation of the constitution clearly does not rise to the status of compulsion, right? So why do you say it's wrong? Law as it stands has no provisions to support that.

So, i do really want to know what you think, whether the law agrees or not, and why. according to what i've read here, you seem to think people with any religious object in mind should be forbidden access to certain kinds of public resources, regardless of their constitutional protections/rights.

My reply to that point was that, a) that doesnt seem consistent with libertarian ideals as i understand them, so i'd be interested in understanding how they connect and b) it's not consistent with the constitution as ruled by dozens of specific cases, as well as the current methodology for testing hypotheticals. If there should be a different methodolgy applied, and the Lemon test is bunk, then i'd really like to hear what the proposed alternative approch should be.

You are right, we've been talking simultaneously about 'what the government endorses' and 'what people do with government resources' and they are indeed not the same thing.

Your point about 'compulsion/choice' is an important one.

Ive never once offered an example of compulsion, other than asking people to respect the rights that are guaranteed people by the constitution. the activities i think are being wrongfully circumscribed are all voluntary behaviours that are treated as exceptional because of perceptions of their 'dangerous religious influence'. Holiday displays, allowing the Koran club the same access the chess club, etc. People keep telling me that these things are anti-constitutional. I point out that the law says otherwise. then i am chastised for apparently endorsing government 'sponsored' activities. So i am not sure who's dancing around the point, me or others. But i dont mind trying to figure it out. As captain holly said, there does seem to be some obvious inconsistency between libertarian principles and how people seem to apply them in practice when it comes to religion. I want to try and figure out why otherwise laissez faire attitudes towards personal choice have exceptions when it comes to talking about God stuff.

The only reason for my resort to legal technicalities at time is to make clear that the constitution does not support comments being made here about what is and isnt OK.

Yet at the same time, its been said so far that the constitution 'is enough', and no further law is needed. This is clearly a contradiction that needs to be clarified. I asked in one of my very early post what people thought needed to be done, legally, to straighten this mess out, but havent heard anything specific yet.

via con dios, muchacho
JG

[GILMORE]

as a follow up, this is kind of interesting =

http://churchstatelaw.com/treatises/3_4.asp

" ... As the Supreme Court has explained: "The proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor is not complicated," [ 16 ] and the Constitution mandates neutrality rather than hostility toward privately initiated religious expression. [ 17 ]"

If thats not clear enough, i dont know what it.

[Eric the .5b]

ME: A "libertarian" who endorses the inevitable killing of innocents as a means of "protecting" himself or innocents in his neighborhood -- purchasing his liberty with the blood of those who have done him no harm and who do not threaten him -- is no libertarian.

ERIC THE 0.5 B: That would pretty much require that anyone who ever supported any war, anywhere, can't be a libertarian.

If you were an anal-retentive literal extremist, I suppose that would be true. And I suppose, to exclude reductio ad absurdum arguments such as yours, I should have said, "to the extent that someone ... blah-blah ... he abandons libertarianism."

You can't make an emphatic, absolute statement that anyone who endorses X "is no libertarian" and then mock people who take you at your word. Or you can, but you look like a schmuck.

[Eric the .5b]

GILMORE:

And as an aside, while I disagree with your arguments and the whole "why are you disagreeing with the law" bit irritates me (this is a libertarian site, after all), I think it's clear you're willing to engage in discussion and certainly aren't the troll I thought you were.

[Robert]

In the 1970s I heard "conservatarian" defined as a libertarian who when not sure about an issue waits to see what "National Review" says about it.

[Nike Dunk Low]

thanks