Ayn Rand made a couple of fair points, but failed to grasp the deep longing most people have to live a noble life. They do not wish to live just for themselves.
The influence of the “libertarian wing” of the Republican Party proves a few things.
In the last thirty years, many Republicans have abandoned conservative principles so completely they have become caricatures of themselves. They have squandered their moral authority and broken trust with Americans. In Republicans’ abject failure, the modern "libertarian" was born.
But the libertarian version of freedom brings nothing new and much that should be rejected.
For a conservative, there can never be a libertarian option because the conservative understands the social contract. He learned this in fourth grade when he figured out his obnoxious behavior annoys others, and if he shoots off his mouth, he might get beaten up.
The conservative understands the relationship between rights and responsibility, liberty and license. He recognizes that individual behavior is not always a private matter. Sometimes it’s between you and society, you and your neighbor, you and the vulnerable. Sometimes your behavior is, in fact, somebody else’s business.
The conservative understands that laws have the power to order behavior and encourage civilized society. The libertarian loses sleep, believing that legal restrictions and social norms exist just to oppress him. He could not be more wrong. No one is thinking of him at all.
With all the libertarian emphasis on personal liberty, there is remarkably little attention paid to personal obligation. In fact, the notion of obligation itself is almost anathema: No one should be forced to do anything.
Extreme libertarianism accepts virtually no exterior restraint on personal liberty, and too quickly demonizes persons and institutions without foundation. “There shalt be no law against me” is the libertarian commandment. It comes just after “Thou shalt hold the Jews responsible for every evil in the world,” and just before “If something can be too easily explained, thou shalt consider it a conspiracy.”
Your sincere, heartfelt belief—if it happens to deviate from the libertarian view—is hopelessly flawed. Doubtless you are being mind-controlled and don’t even know it. Even good manners are suspect. Be careful: Someone is about to take something from you.
Echoing the hippie drumbeat, libertarians are certain that a) The establishment is relentlessly gunning for you; b) Prostitution is a victimless crime (forget the ravaged families and the rampant disease; c) The federal government was wrong to impose civil rights laws; and d) The war on dangerous, illicit drugs has failed, so let’s just legalize everything. (The wars on rape, murder, marital infidelity and stupidity have also failed, but we all pretty much agree they should continue.)
The libertarian belief that it is always unconstitutional for the federal government to interfere in a state matter would effectively vacate the basic civil rights the constitution was created to protect. For example, there is a certain Republican presidential candidate, an obstetrician, who insists he is pro-life, but who would kick the abortion issue back to the individual states and let them decide which babies, in which states, will be allowed to live. So much for liberty.
Libertarianism can seem almost childish, imagining a day when life will no longer be difficult, when the individual is not so put upon. A conservative has no such illusions. He accepts the life he is given, one characterized by work and trial and obstacles. His conservatism is instinctive, his belief persistent, that there is no circumstance, no matter how bleak, that cannot be improved upon tomorrow. It is resolve rising from the ruins. It is pushing through when there is nothing left, and then pushing through some more. It is life as it is lived, and as it is suffered.
In its essence, conservatism is not even political. It is recognition that everything that has been given us, everything sacrificed, was done so at a cost. It is an intuitive need to connect the past and the present. It is a solemn, unhurried reflection on those who have gone before, knowing all we can do for them now, all we can offer, is to remember them well.
If, as Chesterton wrote, “Tradition is the democracy of the dead,” conservatism is the gratitude of the living—for one’s country, for one’s history, for one’s life.
Conservatives must forget terms like “paleo” and “neo” and other meaningless designations. Conservatives love liberty, but understand it is not absolute. They value their privacy, but realize it is not inviolate.
Ayn Rand made a couple of fair points, but failed to grasp the deep longing most people have to live a noble life. They do not wish to live just for themselves.
Liberty is more than the freedom to do as one chooses. It is the freedom—and the choice−to do as one should. Conservatives should reject a libertarian ideology that does not know the difference.
"With all the libertarian emphasis on personal liberty, there is remarkably little attention paid to personal obligation. In fact, the notion of obligation itself is almost anathema: No one should be forced to do anything.:
If you don't take personal responsibility for yourself you can not call yourself a libertarian.
“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” –Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.
Is there any principal listed below that you would disagree with?
THE TEN PRINCIPLES OF A FREE SOCIETY
1. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.
2. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.
3. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.
4. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.
5. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.
6. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people's money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability.
7. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden.
8. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm.
9. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution.
10. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.
- Liberty Defined by Ron Paul
Please do not confuse Objectivism (Ayn Rand's ideas) with libertarianism. They are as diametrically opposed as conservatism vs. Objectivism. Libertarianism and conservatism are politics. Objectivism is philosophy. Note that politics is the fourth branch of philosophy, after metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. For the Objectivist view of conservatism, see http://www.AynRandLexicon.com; click on "Conservatives" and "Conservatives" vs. "Liberals."
Thank you, Ed. But I don't believe I am confusing anything. As manifested in political thought, I believed that modern day libertarianism can be correctly interpreted as the objectivism and extreme individualism that characterized much of Rand's thought-although much is valid. I wasn't exploring the particulars of the philosophy so much as its political manifestation on the perimeters. Thanks.
I appreciate your purpose. Nonetheless, I posted to go on the record for the benefit of your readers. Libertarianism has its basis in anarchism, as put forth by Murray Rothbard. Ayn Rand excoriated anarchism, and for good reason. Rothbard learned laissez-faire capitalism at Ayn Rand's knee, then proceeded to steel those ideas and corrupt them, which led to modern day libertarianism, a polyglot of conflicting ideas, without a consistent moral foundation. In commenting on libertarianism, you have misrepresented Objectivism. (Note the capital "O". Objectivism is a proper noun.) For a good overview of Objectivist politics, see http://www.PrinciplesOfaFreeSociety.com.
As to individualism, our rejection of altruism–self-sacrifice–does not mean that Objectivists do not care for others. Observe that I write to you (and your readers) as an act of generosity. It is in my rational self interest to help you understand us. Altruism–literally other-ism–should NOT be confused with benevolence. Note that the Ayn Rand Institute is a charity; it operates on donations, just as your church does.
Please look up individualism and altruism in the Lexicon, if you are inclined to understand Objectivism.
Make that "steal," not "steel." Thanks.
Thanks, Ed. But again, I don't believe I have misunderstood or misrepresented anything. You are making the simple complicated. And thank you, at your suggestion, I will try to remember to look up words in the dictionary. :)