From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Interesting Revelation (WAS Re: Libertarian Platform)
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:15:42 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <91825@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <11379@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 
> >The Libertarian Party has a bunch of ideologues who write the party
> >platform, and don't think very carefully about the consequences.
> [...]
> >The poor grasp of reality of the LP ideologues, and the inability
> >of the ideologues to admit that they have engaged in a significant
> >distortion of American history to justify their position, is one
> >of the reasons I am no longer a member of the LP.  I am not even
> >a small-l libertarian, but a classical liberal with libertarian
> >leanings.
> 
> This was quite an informative revelation. In light of your arguing that
> moral theory is based on absolutes, as opposed to the absence of coercion,
> I would have to agree that you are not a L[/l]ibertarian. But some would

That coercion is wrong, a tenet of libertarian thought, is definitely
a moral absolute.

> argue that moral theory based on absolutes is not classical liberalism
> at all but classical _conservatism_, as opposed to the current flavor
> of conservatism. That is, the credo espoused by the recently out-of-the
> closet homosexual conservative Marvin [what's his surname: the ex-honcho of
> W.F. Buckley?], the-live-and-let-live theory of conservatism.

I think you need to study history.  Classicalism liberalism asserted
that moral theory was based on absolutes.  "We hold these truths to
be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

Conservatives of the 19th century were weak on ideology (especially
with the general collapse of "divine right of kings" as a theory), and 
argued from pragmatic standpoints for their positions.

> In my opinion, the greatest difference between the political parties today
> are their moral theories:
> 
> Democrats: morality arises from the necessity of promoting the common good
> of the people, and protecting the primacy of individual rights over group
> rights.

Except for the right to self-defense, and the right to run your own
business.

> Libertarians: morality arises from the elimination of coercive power over
> the individual

Not an accurate statement.  Libertarians include a variety of 
philosophies.  Some are Christians, who assert that the elimination
of coercive power over the individual provides an opportunity for
the individual to make his own decisions about how to implement
his morality.  Some are vaguely Judeo-Christian moral code, and
assert the position above.  Some are hedonists who have no notion
of morality (and for some odd reason, usually can't be found when
campaign workers are needed).

> Republicans: morality arises from eternal absolutes (some would say tradition)

There are Republicans in that category.  There are a lot of others
who recognize that eternal absolutes and tradition are not necessarily
the same thing, right now.  (And of course, large numbers who are
complete without ideology -- just like large numbers of Democrats.
It's all about power and money).

> I'd be interested in hearing what you consider to be the moral theory of
> classical liberalism, and how it differs from your interpretation of classical
> conservatism, not to mention L[/l]ibertarianism.
> 

> kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,

Classical liberalism, as stated by thinkers such as Adam Smith,
John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson, were skeptical of concentrations
of power because it led to destruction of individual rights of
conscience, and economic self-determination.  The fundamental
roots of these ideas are Judeo-Christian tradition that human
beings are intrinsically sinful, and left to their own devices,
will abuse power, unless restrained by competition, government,
or naked force.

At the time of the merican Revolution, these concentrations of 
power were entirely governmental in nature.  In the late 19th
century and early 20th century, these concentrations of power 
became increasingly corporate; from the 1930s onward,
labor unions and government became the concentrations of power.
Today, Big Government, Big Business, and Big Labor are each
scrapping for control, and unfortunately, all are winning.

There is no theory of conservatism, other than to slow the rate
of change so that it can be adjusted to with minimum pain.

Libertarianism is an attempt to come up with a scheme of
government that does not require a government, and does not
require an ideology of governmental coercion that will be
later expanded.  Classical liberalism recognized that some
forms of coercion increased the common good without being a 
major burden on individuals, but having crossed the line 
into an ideology of initiating coercion, it was impossible
to pull back when socialists took that ideology and used it
to justify coercions that were NOT for the common good, but
were the origins of the modern welfare state.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc