McDonald's denunciation of libertarianism lacks sophistication
Gennady Stolyarov II
Issue date: 9/24/09 Section: Opinion
In his Sept. 19 editorial, "Libertarianism flawed, lacks basic ethics," Michael McDonald makes sweeping, unwarranted characterizations of all libertarians.
Mr. McDonald begins by accusing 1960s libertarians of being "pot-smoking hippies." While some probably were, libertarians in general are not characterized by adherence to any particular set of lifestyle choices. Just because one believes that drugs ought to be legalized, for instance, does not mean that one personally wishes to take drugs. The confusion between desirable legality and desirable behavior has long been at the root of misunderstandings of libertarianism both by many "conservatives" and many "liberals."
Moreover, the vast majority of Mr. McDonald's editorial criticizes an allegedly "libertarian" view of foreign policy - namely, non-interventionism and opposition to the United States' major military involvements during the 20th and 21st centuries. It is true that many libertarians hold this view - but not the caricature of it that Mr. McDonald presents when he quotes Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard out of context. However, no single foreign policy stance is necessary for being a libertarian. There are, and have been, numerous libertarians who have supported aspects of America's involvement in the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the Gulf Wars, among others. Until 2008, I myself used to support some parts of the present Iraq occupation. I considered myself a libertarian then, and I still do now.
Mr. McDonald also makes a grave error when he writes: "The fundamental flaw with libertarianism is that it has a subjective view of ethics and morality." The fundamental principle of libertarianism is an absolute moral law: the sanctity of the life and liberty of every individual and the absolute evil of the initiation of force by any one human being against any other. To say that some aspects of a person's life may be open to choice and discretion - which everybody acknowledges to some degree - is not to say that all of them are, nor is it to lapse into ethical subjectivism.
Mr. McDonald begins by accusing 1960s libertarians of being "pot-smoking hippies." While some probably were, libertarians in general are not characterized by adherence to any particular set of lifestyle choices. Just because one believes that drugs ought to be legalized, for instance, does not mean that one personally wishes to take drugs. The confusion between desirable legality and desirable behavior has long been at the root of misunderstandings of libertarianism both by many "conservatives" and many "liberals."
Moreover, the vast majority of Mr. McDonald's editorial criticizes an allegedly "libertarian" view of foreign policy - namely, non-interventionism and opposition to the United States' major military involvements during the 20th and 21st centuries. It is true that many libertarians hold this view - but not the caricature of it that Mr. McDonald presents when he quotes Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard out of context. However, no single foreign policy stance is necessary for being a libertarian. There are, and have been, numerous libertarians who have supported aspects of America's involvement in the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the Gulf Wars, among others. Until 2008, I myself used to support some parts of the present Iraq occupation. I considered myself a libertarian then, and I still do now.
Mr. McDonald also makes a grave error when he writes: "The fundamental flaw with libertarianism is that it has a subjective view of ethics and morality." The fundamental principle of libertarianism is an absolute moral law: the sanctity of the life and liberty of every individual and the absolute evil of the initiation of force by any one human being against any other. To say that some aspects of a person's life may be open to choice and discretion - which everybody acknowledges to some degree - is not to say that all of them are, nor is it to lapse into ethical subjectivism.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Red
posted 9/25/09 @ 10:42 AM EST
Thank you Gennady for a polite and concise rebuttal, I'll be sure to facebook it. Also, Muchas Gracias for your timely response; I was getting concerned that as a dope-smoking, promiscuous, anti-war relativist I was spending too much time between multiple jobs, volunteering, and reading military history. (Continued…)
Post a Comment