Recently in Libertarians Category

The medieval monk and scholar Caesarius of Heisterbach tells of hearing a lay brother praying to Jesus: “Lord,” the man declared, “if Thou free me not from this temptation I will complain of Thee to Thy mother.”

Attempting to blackmail Christ is, of course, not the best way to seek absolution. But while blackmail is a sin, should it also be a crime? UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh presents a paradox about blackmail in response to a letter someone sent a senator who was planning to vote for Alito that threatened to reveal that the senator was gay unless he voted against the nomination. The paradox, as usefully summarized by Jeremy Pierce, is that:

1. Free speech rights allow me to publish embarrassing information about someone (in many cases).
2. There's nothing immoral or illegal about asking for money in exchange for a service (in most cases).
3. But when 1 and 2 are combined, we call it blackmail and make it illegal. How can it be that the combination of two legal acts could make something illegal?

The libertarian-leaning Volokh, after noting that legal scholars have debated this for decades, says, “to my knowledge have not come up with a perfectly satisfactory answer.” Other libertarians are more certain, claiming that blackmail is a “victimless crime.” Economics professor Walter Block also acknowledges the paradox yet comes to a different conclusion:

The medieval monk and scholar Caesarius of Heisterbach tells of hearing a lay brother praying to Jesus: “Lord,” the man declared, “if Thou free me not from this temptation I will complain of Thee to Thy mother.”

Attempting to blackmail Christ is, of course, not the best way to seek absolution. But while blackmail is a sin, should it also be a crime? Libertarians, who claim it is a “victimless crime” would say no. As economics professor Walter Block explains,

There is something deeply paradoxical about laws that criminalize blackmail. How is it that, as Glanville Williams put it, "two things that taken separately are moral and legal whites together make a moral and legal black"? For the crime of blackmail involves the criminalization of two otherwise legal acts when they occur in combination- for example, the threat to disclose damaging information about another, and the offer to refrain from disclosing it for some valuable consideration.

Were Alfred to (threaten to) disclose damaging information concerning Bill's extramarital affairs, no offense recognized by law would be involved (even if there were something distasteful about such gossip); were Alfred to ask Bill for $5000, again there would be no contravention of any proper law (even if it displayed a degree of chutzpah). But were Alfred to threaten Bill that he would disclose information concerning Bill's extramarital affairs unless Bill paid him $5000, his two-part act would – under current laws-constitute the crime of blackmail. Why should the conjunction of such otherwise legal acts have an entirely different legal status?

Would a Christian libertarian also argue in favor decriminalizing the practice? The reason I ask is because one the main complaints I have with most libertarians is that they often work backwards from a grievance to the development of their core beliefs. Christians, on the other hand, must start with Biblical principles and work their way to a coherent political philosophy.

But a number of bloggers whose intellect and opinions I respect (particularly John Coleman, Josh Claybourn, and Vox Day) subscribe to some version of Christian libertarianism. While I don’t find the political theory to be a tenable option, I’m open to changing my opinion and so I'm eager to hear a defense of blackmail from a Biblical perspective.

Josh once claimed that, “At the root of Christian libertarianism is the biblical conviction that God grants men the freedom (never the permission) to sin.” But while the state doesn’t (nor should) criminalize every sin, some legitimate crimes also fall into the category of sin. How does the Christian libertarian decide what should be considered a crime? How can blackmail be considered a sin that should not also be classified as a crime? I'm interested in hearing how the abhorrent practice could be defended. In fact, I expect to have a reply no later than Monday. If not, then I just may have to post some of their dirty little secrets...

Update: Josh, Vox, and John all responded with thoughtful posts. I can't think or write as fast as they can so it will take me a few days to provide a counter-critique. While I’m not quite convinced, I am impressed by their reasoning and attempt to think Biblically on political issues. In that respect, my feelings about Christian libertarians are similar to my view of Catholics: I may admire their beliefs but I’m not yet ready to convert to their way of thinking.

Update 2: Mike from Blind Mind’s Eye weighs in with a defense.

Update 3: Jeremy Pierce, in his excellent rebuttal, includes this insightful paragraph:

This is a real conflict in libertarian political thought, because it seems that anyone's freedom will almost certainly end up restricting someone else's. So when you try to figure out which freedoms you're going to restrict, you have to decide it based on some factor other than the pure value of freedom, because freedom is what's creating the conflict. We need a choice between freedoms, in particular between the freedom of one person and the freedom of another. Libertarians argue against slavery on the grounds that it's an uncontroversial case of one person's freedom restricting another's, but isn't the same sort of thing going on in all kinds of other social relationships?

[Note: Because of the emphasis on the upcoming election, I haven't taken the opportunity to explore a political issue that has always intrigued me -- Christian libertarianism. The main complaint I have with most libertarians is that they often work backwards from a grievance to the development of their core beliefs. Christians, on the other hand, must start with Biblical principles and work their way to a coherent political philosophy. A number of my bloggers whose intellect and opinions I respect (particularly John Coleman, Josh Claybourn, and Vox Day) subscribe to some version of Christian libertarianism. In the hopes that they (and others) will join me in exploring the foundational issues in more detail, I'm reposting an article I wrote last December explaining why I do not think libertarianism is tenable. I'm open to changing my opinion, though, so I'm interested in hearing critiques of my position and a defense of why libertarianism is compatible with a Biblical worldview.]

Authorities in Brockton, MA are probing an alleged junior high prostitution racket run by a 13-year-old girl. The accused teen is even suspected of pressuring her mentally impaired friend into turning tricks for as little as $5. According to sources quoted in the Boston Herald, the trysts had been going on for weeks and involve as many as 20 boys from the local junior high and high school. The case came to the attention of the authorities when two girls told school officials they were solicited by the accused junior high madame to join the upstart sex ring. A third girl also came forward later to corroborate the claim.

Many people will read this story and assume it is further evidence that the our sex-soaked culture is trickling down and infecting our youth. While there is a great deal of merit in that view, I think that we shouldn’t read too much into this one incident. Teen prostitution has been around as long as their have been teens and prostitutes. That is to say, for as long as mankind has been on the earth.

The only reason I mention the story is that it provides a prime opportunity to explore the differences between libertarian and conservative political philosophies. The two are so often lumped together that we often need remind ourselves just how distinct, and often incompatible, the ideologies truly are. By focusing on this nexus of teen sex and prostitution, I think we have a clear dividing line to help sharpen our focus.

Last week, the Libertarian Party announced that Michael Badnarik, a computer programmer from Texas, will be their 2004 Presidential candidate. "If I can win the nomination, there's no reason I can't win this election," said Badnarkik, obviously unaware of the LP’s track record in Presidential races.

While I personally admire Badnarik's clueless optimism, other bloggers aren’t as impressed. Jon Henke from QandO is particularly disappointed with the choice (“Badnarik is exactly the sort of person that gives Libertarians a reputation as fringe-dwelling nuts.") and Captain Ed argues that the LP has proven that it won’t be posing a threat to the two-party system anytime soon.

While I respect their opinions, I think they’re being too harsh. The LP has some well argued policy positions that are worthy of a closer look. Take, for example, Badnarik position on the “War on Drugs":

I've always been impressed by the uncanny ability many libertarians have in spotting flaws in logic and reasoning. Whether the arguments come from the Right or the Left, the libertarian critique is often intriguingly rational, even if not always convincing. Unfortunately, they often fail to use this particular gift when evaluating their own ideological conclusions.

Take, for example, the latest uproar over the Justice department’s 'war on porn." There is something about regulating pornography that causes even the most prurient libertarian to become apoplectic. Glenn Reynolds, a law professor and reasonably logical fellow, though certainly no prude, rants, 'And if the Administration thinks that this is a good use of their "computer forensics" experts, then they must have decided that terrorists aren't a threat any more." Reynolds analysis of other people’s statements is typically rather sharp. So why does he stumble into such an obviously false dilemma?

As Justin Katz notes,

Six "specialists" are working on something other than terrorism, and that's a signal that the War on Terror has been abandoned? Ms. Sullivan doesn't give us more of an idea of the cost than "millions," which is a pretty broad range, but how many millions not devoted to the multibillion-dollar effort of national defense indicate unduly skewed priorities? [emphasis in original]

Reynolds, though, isn’t the only one that falls for this line of reasoning. Alphecca, another skilled debater and critical thinker, adds:

There once was a time when the political dividing line ran from Left to Right. Now, we’re all just different flavors of libertarian. From reluctant minarchists to the anarcho-capitalists, libertarians are everywhere. The Internet, especially the blogosphere, is infested with them which makes it difficult to distinguish the Christian libertarian crowd from the Howard Roark wannabes.

Fortunately, the Libertarian Purity Test can help us create a taxonomy of libertarian pundits. Taking Steve Bainbridge's suggestion, I've tallied up some of the scores and put from around the blogosphere. For now I've chosen to use the test's own descriptions until I can come up with more accurate labels:

For anyone still unclear about how to describe libertarians to your non-political friends, John Coleman has provided a rather accurate explanation:

Here’s the breakdown: On the negative side, Libertarians are crazy. Most became Libertarians because they have some social quirk that disallows them from participation in normal society — picture excessive drug use, Dungeons and Dragons play or fascination with the word “metrosexual,” for instance. They are strange. You can’t take them home to your parents, unless, of course, your parents are members of some druid cult. They frighten small children.

On the positive side, they may be weird, but at least they want to leave you alone. Putting most politicians in office is like putting Michael Jackson in charge of a day care facility — they might not do anything wrong, but you feel pretty uncomfortable leaving them alone.

(Hat tip: Diotoma)

Since Charles Dickens’s describes his character Ebenezeer Scrooge as a “squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous” miser, you probably thought he was disparaging free enterprise, right? (No? Come on, just play along for a minute.)

According to Daniel Oliver, a fellow at the libertarian Capital Research Center, many of us believe that the “A Christmas Carol” was “meant to persuade readers to support a welfare state.” (Um, I thought it was meant to persuade us to support generosity, but then English lit is not my forte.) Oliver goes on to add: “Scrooge’s character defect is not so much greed as miserliness.” Which confuses me since I thought miserliness was caused by greed. (Ethics was not my forte either.)

I’ve read the story and have seen more movie versions than I care to remember. Not once did I ever think Dicken's story implied support for building a welfare state. If it weren’t the holiday season, I’d take the time to properly fisk the strawman that Mr. Oliver has built. But since it’s Christmas time I’ll let it slide. As Tiny Tim would say, “God bless us every one. Libertarian apologists included.”

(Via: Crooked Timber)

Charles Murray almost had me. When I first read Murray’s “What It Means To Be A Libertarian” nearly ten years ago I was compelled by the thrust of his argument. "Freedom is first of all our birthright,” Murray claimed. “An adult making an honest living and minding his own business deserves to be left alone to live his life. He deserves to be free."

Libertarianism appeared to be an attractive political philosophy yet something was missing. It reminded me of my high school days when after reading “The Fountainhead” I wanted to become an Objectivist. Doing so, however, required me to deny a concept that I had known was undeniably true: original sin. And then I realized the problem with libertarianism, like objectivism and liberalism, was that it required accepting a romanticized view of human nature.

Several day ago, Josh Claybourn, wrote about how as a "libertarian-minded conservative" he was having doubts about Bush being the "best option" available. He adds:

"Of course most, if not all, of the Democratic candidates are just as far from my ideal position. But they are not the only people running, and silently trudging down the wrong path does nothing to correct the course. That's why I'm officially an "undecided" voter."

Though he doesn't exactly say what course of action he will take, he does imply that he will be voting. If this is the case, he is left with three options:

a) Vote for the Republican candidate (Bush)
b) Vote for the Democratic candidate (Dean, most likely)
c) Vote for a Third Party candidate

Since he outlines some of the criteria that will influence his decision (racial preferences, pro-life leadership, state's rights) he must believe that either option (b) or (c) is preferable to Bush. Claybourn appears politically astute enough to know that none of the potential Democrats will be any closer, in aggregate terms, to his view, so I assume that he believes there is a third party candidate that fit's the bill.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter.

Though Claybourn agrees that the "voting isn't worth your time" argument is bankrupt, he nevertheles seems to be falling under the "Nader Delusion" - the belief that by wasting your vote on a third party candidate you are participating in a legitimate form of political protest.