Political Insider

By David Sarosi

January 12, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this

Where does one begin with this piece of drivel?

First I must deeply question the characterization of Mr. Barr as a Libertarian. If he in fact is a member of the Libertarian National Committee it only further shows why the party needs a serious housecleaning, starting with the non-libertarian Neal Boortz. Mr. Barr opposes the medicinal use of marijuana, and the legalization of all drugs in general, despite the fact that such legalization is 100% consistent with the argument he has made in favor of alcohol sales on Sunday.

Leaving Barr out of this, I must say that Mr. Fields is significantly lacking in intellect himself.

I am quite familiar with the Libertarian Party principles and the philosophy of libertarianism in general. I have been a state and national party member for over a dozen years, have held local office in the party on several occasions and have run for the office of State Senate in California on the party banner back in the 90’s.

The philosophy of libertarianism is quite simple. As a creature either created by god or by nature, one is inherently endowed with certain freedoms and rights. One should be able to dispose of one’s life, one’s body, one’s property, etc. as they see fit so long as the exercise of these freedoms does not impinge directly on the free exercise of freedoms by another or on their property or person.

From this one derives the obvious crimes of assault, murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc. One does not need further religious doctrines to derive these laws as they are consistent with the philosophy of libertarianism.

To this end, the unrestricted and unregulated sale of something between free and willing participants should not be impinged upon by anyone, not even the government. Were this the sale of alcohol between me and a business owner, there would be no impact whatsoever on the person, property, or otherwise of any other individual. Mr Fields would have you believe otherwise.

He says “What Barr and other Libertarians fail to acknowledge is that such moral neutrality is impossible. By seeking to influence legislation with their viewpoint they are trying to force others to live by their ideals - the very thing they claim to oppose.” First I hope all readers will see from the libertarian philosophy that it is not “morally neutral.” There is a very consistent moral philosophy based on individual freedom, personal responsibility, and liberty.

Mr. Fields attempts to make the argument that because he will be upset by the re-legalization of alcohol sales in Georgia then such a change will be somehow forcing him and others with his beliefs to “live by (new) ideals.” Restoring freedom to individuals to engage in a basically private sale of a commodity in no way forces Mr. Fields to change his ideals one bit. He is not forced to buy anything on Sunday nor is anyone else. If God is “diminished” by this action, then just what sort of weak and insignificant god are we talking about here?

Mr Fields goes on to write “Saying that it is “wrong” for the state to interfere with and individual’s personal liberties is itself a moral and religious belief.” The libertarian philosophy does not say that it is wrong to interfere with an individuals personal liberties. It says that by definition we as sovereign beings inherently possess these freedoms, and only when we violate the rights of others is it appropriate for our actions to be limited (for the protection of the inherent rights of that other person). If Mr. Fields wishes this profoundly wonderful philosophy to be considered a moral or religious belief, then he should be aware that it is a product of some of the greatest minds of the Renaissance of Europe and the philosophy upon which this country was founded.

Further he writes “Saying people should be given a choice about what they do on Sunday is to take a moral stance.” No it is not. It is to take a consistent stance in support of personal freedom and liberty. Mr. Fields reveals the true source of his displeasure in his next paragraphs in which he rants about how things were better in the past and how we now suffer from more stress because we do not honor Sunday the way we should, and how re-establishing freedom with such law changes somehow negatively impacts the wonderful world supposedly created by Christians in their infinite wisdom (sarcasm mine).

According to Mr. Fields a day of rest was “built into creation” yet somehow there exist dozens of religions without this claim. In the final analysis of Mr. Fields “rolling up the sidewalks on Saturday night might not have been a bad idea.” There you have it. The essence of the argument is that Mr. Fields yearns for the days of yore when everything was wonderful, america was the garden of eden, and all was well with the world because everyone was forced by law to “honor the sabbath - well the christian sabbath anyway.”

Lets be clear. The philosophy of libertarianism is about personal freedom. Mr. Fields needs to make it appear as though libertarianism is somehow inconsistent with its own philosophy. It is not. Go to www.mises.org or www.lp.org to read up on libertarianism. See for yourself. Mr. Fields needs to have us believe this because he does not believe that your were created by God to be a sovereign individual with the ability to make up your own mind and to be responsible for your own actions. He cannot fathom the concept that two individuals are doing something on the sabbath that he finds personally objectionable so he is attempting to say that your freedoms somehow impinge on his. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Remeber the key point in his rant: “At its root Libertarianism and its advocates suffer from an incurable case of inconsistency and arbitrariness when it comes to state regulation on personal behavior.” I have never seen an inconsistency with the libertarian argument. It supports the right to a free and unregulated marketplace in which fraud, theft, and other violations of person or property are crimes. It supports the complete ownership of one’s body - to that end the legalization of prostitution, drugs, etc. so long as none of these actions impinge upon the person or property of another (so yes, laws against rape, assault, theft, fraud, and any similarly criminal acts committed while under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or otherwise). It supports a government who’s actions are limited soley to the protection and enforcement of those rights (in other words virtually nothing the current government does). Arbitrary regulations or laws that do not support this philosophy are not supported by true libertarians. If Mr. Fields has a different concept of libertarianism, then he should do more research before opening his ill-informed mouth.

So this is the best argument the other side can come up with. If the Georgia legislature respects freedom and democracy enough to let us vote on it, the outcome is going to be a no-brainer. Mr. Fields might want to start some therapy in preparation. If the legislature truly respected freedom and liberty we would not have to vote on it. They would simply restore our freedoms.

By Aquagirl

January 12, 2007 5:45 PM | Link to this

In the final analysis, rolling up Marty Field’s flapping tongue might not be a bad idea either. Same for his cranky mommma and all the other sanctimonious types.

Do you think we’ll see a piece from Sadie’s daughter On this issue?

BWAH!

By CutandPaste

January 12, 2007 6:42 PM | Link to this

David, however people view Libertarian principles, you illustrate why no one listens to the party or the ideas. Your post is longer than the article you’re discussing. At least we can get through a Bob Barr article without No-Doz.

And hey, just for fun, do a word count of Marty’s article including the title. We’ve found the AntiChrist!

By David Sarosi

January 12, 2007 7:45 PM | Link to this

Cut and Paste

You see how long I’ve been a libertarian trying to educate the world to the philosophy. To fully understand it is to appreciate it in its perfect simplicity and consistency.

It is not easy to explain in a soundbite. If it were, a bumpersticker campaign would have explained it years ago.

Sorry for the length. Hope you read it all and learned something.

By Downtym

January 12, 2007 8:00 PM | Link to this

M. Fields: 808 words, including title. D. Sarosi: 1,228 words, including title.

If you can’t read 1,000 words of text - a paltry sum - and stay awake, what are you doing here?

As to the matter at hand, Mr. Fields’ argument is laughable. He try to associate state enforced morality with personal morality as a way of showing inconsitency in Mr. Barr’s argument. And then he has the temerity to argue that repealing the Sunday blue laws is a religious choice.

Give me a break, Mr. Fields. Also, please stop using the word cogent like you know what it means.

By Steve

January 12, 2007 8:06 PM | Link to this

Mr. Fields, where in the Bible does it say that Sunday is the day of rest?

Thanks

By Lisa

January 12, 2007 8:46 PM | Link to this

I am a native Georgian who can well remember the days when most, if not all businesses were closed on Sunday and people did actually rest, visit friends, have some downtime. However, I do realize that things have changed and many people don’t work a Monday-Friday 9-5 job any longer. I wish we could go back to the days where people did take more time to visit friends and family but so called “Blue laws” have nothing to do with that.

Although I do not drink alcohol, I do not have a problem at all with putting this to the people for a vote. The “Blue laws” are pretty senseless anyway. Having a law that says you can’t purchase liquor on Sunday, just means that people who want it will stock up on Saturday.

By Marty

January 13, 2007 1:20 AM | Link to this

Hi All,

Wow- didn’t expect all this response. A few of the responses are interesting. Some of those who responded need to start anger mgt. classes.

To Mr. Sarosi: “One should be able to dispose of one’s life, one’s body, one’s property, etc. as they see fit so long as the exercise of these freedoms does not impinge directly on the free exercise of freedoms by another or on their property or person.”

What is the philosophical justification for this moral theory? Is “Should” a deontological, consequentialist, or otherwise informed sense of obligation?

My own quasi-libertarian training was with a disciple of john Hospers, and I know where he stood. What say you?

To Steve: It doesn’t say “Sunday” but the “Seventh” dayb (Gen. 2:2). Christians believe the Sabbath moved from Sat to Sun b/c of the Resurrection and the observance of the early church. Hope that helps.

TO ALL: I am not opposed to alcohol consumption and do not believe the state should regulate it. Many of you missed the point of what I was writing, not to mention the AJC changed some of my words. But the gist of it was correct: Libertarianism has never been able to justify a COGENT ethical theory that is not self-contradictory or arbitrary. If it could- I would be one.

To Aqua Girl: Stop being so judgemental!

To Cut and Paste: That’s too funny! But I’m not a premillennialist so I don’t care.

To Downtym: uuuhhhmmmm.. Bertrand Russell’s self-reference paradoxes. Look them up.

By david

January 13, 2007 6:03 AM | Link to this

It is the religious right that are hypocrites. Libertarianism is a consistent philosophy supportive of individual liberty and personal responsibility. Fields and Co want government to force everyone to abide by their code. This is Fascism and Anti-Liberty.

By Aquagirl

January 13, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this

I’m judgemental? I consider myself Libertarian too. I would disagree with both Marty and David’s implicit assumption that Libertarianism is a personal philosophy of how to run one’s personal life. To me, It is a political philosopy (or system) which has nothing to do with how much you help your neighbor, etc. in your system of ethics.

Since when did the government replace society? Darned right I’m judgmental of people who want the government to enforce their version of correct social or ethical behavior, no matter how well-intentioned. Libertarianism gives the freedom to live how they see fit.

If God lets us exercise free will, who are the Martys and Sadies of the world who think they have the right to do this?

Marty (if it is indeed you posting—there’s no way to really know that) that’s why I want you to roll up your flapping tongue. You’re using it as an instrument advocating government control of people’s behavior. Embrace and practice your moral ideals, but don’t assume they extend to everyone.

That’s just plain arrogance.

By David Sarosi

January 13, 2007 10:42 PM | Link to this

Glad to see I wasn’t the only one who found the discussion of length versus content a bit unsettling. Just another symptom of our ADD society I guess.

As to the question of philosophical justification for the theory I really cannot say. I suppose I should have used a better word than “should.” I suppose it comes down to the premise that if you are created as a sovereign individual then you either own yourself or someones else like the government does. My education on Libertarianism has been all over the map from Rothbard to Mises to Rand to the folks at www.fff.org and many others. With your background with Mr. Hospers I hope that you feel I did the philosophy some justice despite my verbocity. I would probably have to say that more people have spent more words trying to explain this philosophy and the misconceptions about it than most other philosophies of man. Frankly I am unable to believe anything else about the nature of man simply because of its perfect simplicity and root in the self-ownership of the individual.

As for Aquagirl I really don’t see any reason to need to draw a line between the political and personal aspects of this. I stated my point by focussing on the actions of the individual because ultimately everything in the philosophy derives from the rights of the individual. If you are not free to do as you wish then there is no liberty or freedom. To classify libertarianism as strictly a political philosophy is to ignore the critical importance of human actions and freedom of the individual. For what are laws anyway but directives on the freedom of the individual to do what they want with their body, their property, and their life???

Libertarianism does not tell one how to live one’s life. It says that everyone should be free to do as they please, but does not say what those actions should be. It is indeed political because it says that there must be no government action taken to impinge upon those freedoms.

You are right that it is not about helping your neighbor, but it is also true that if the government has taken all of your money and your possessions you are in less of a position to help them.

By dbsmith

January 14, 2007 12:45 AM | Link to this

Mr. Fields basically makes the same arguement that a lot of the religious right makes on a vareity of issues. He thinks he understands libertarianism, but he doesn’t.

I think the key paragraph in his column is the one that states, “Saying people should be given a choice about what they do on Sunday is to take a moral stance. Barr can’t have it both ways. The question is what perspective will influence such regulation.”

Essentially, he is saying that a person who believes that people have a right to decide for themselves whether to sell or buy alcholic beverages on Sunday are trying to impose their view on others, just like those who think it Sunday alcohol sales should be banned are imposing their views on others.

That misses the point entirely. A person who opposes blue laws on libertarian grounds believes that a person has the right to decide whether to buy or sell alcohol on Sunday (or any other day). Those who wish not to do so can choose not to enter into a contract to buy or sell alcohol on Sunday (or any other day).

A person like Fields who supports blue laws is using the government to impede the right of others to engage in commerce. Those opposing blue laws are not using the government to force Fields or anyone else to engage in that same commerce. You still have the right to abstain.

Ultimately, Fields’ philosophy is the same as the far left’s - your choice buy alcohol on Sunday affects him because he is morally opposed to it, so if he can get sufficient political support from others who share his view, he has the right to use that support to convince lawmakers to ban it. That means every private contract (whether alcohol sales or corporate CEO pay or whatever) is subject to government regulation, as long as those who want to regulate (or ban) such a private contract can get themselves and others like them elected to legislative office in sufficient numbers to carry out their agenda.

By Dave

January 14, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

I’m a Republican and I agree with less government - period - and the power of the Constitution. At the very least, I expect the public to have an opportunity to vote on the Blue Laws.

(The word count is funny - nice catch. But it’s probably the best defense of the Blue Laws we’re going to find, which is to say they’re indefensible against the Constitution.)

By Aquagirl

January 14, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

You’re correct, David in that Libertarianism is indeed a moral philosopy in as much that it does take a stance on liberty and personal freedom. I guess my point is that you don’t have to embrace the total philosopy to support a political system based on such ideals.

db sums up the current political thinking of most Americans. They are either for or against something, and that is reason enough to pass a law. Flag burning is a good example. They don’t understand the idea that a law shouldn’t be based on whether or not they like it, but on whether or not it affects their ability to exercise their freedoms. Perhaps if more people were willing to just adopt that one idea, then we’d have a lot more freedom in this country today.

The fact that so many people articulate this idea when they’re expressing an opinion about the blue laws means it’s not a huge jump for most folks. I think if we concentrated on just getting them to implement that simple philosophy, that would be a lot easier than trying to change their whole life perspective. Politics, after all, must be grounded in reality.

By O' Troll

January 15, 2007 9:55 PM | Link to this

But what about abortion?

By infojunkie

January 20, 2007 3:32 AM | Link to this

David Sarosi wrote: “I am quite familiar with the Libertarian Party”

But you may not be familiar with the NEW Bob Barr. Be on the lookout for the release of his comments made Jan 18 at his debate with Ethan Nadelmann. I know I was quite surprised. When I heard that debate was scheduled, I had assumed the worst.

Marty wrote: “Libertarianism has never been able to justify a COGENT ethical theory that is not self-contradictory or arbitrary”

It’s actually pretty easy, Marty. DON’T HURT OTHER PEOPLE, AND DON’T FORCE ANYTHING ON THOSE NOT HURTING OTHER PEOPLE. It’s kinda like the Golden Rule, in fact. (Or the Wiccan Rede.) How about that? You have to be some kind of pedantic fool to try to read so much into that that you don’t really “get it.”

Put another way: if there is no victim, there is no crime, so take your blue laws and apply them in your own house if you want, but not for the country, nor your state, nor your county, nor even your own town. All adults have a right to be free to live their lives and even make their own mistakes sometimes. You are not their G-d and you are trying to act like it! Doesn’t your religion say something about that?