Libertarian Evangelistic Arguments - Part 1

Description

This article is from the Libertarian FAQ, by Joe Dehn jwd3@dehnbase.fidonet.org, Robert Bickford rab.AT.daft.com, Mike Huben mhuben@world.std.com and Advocates for Self-Government http://www.self-gov.org/ with numerous contributions by others.

38 Libertarian Evangelistic Arguments - Part 1

Evangelists (those trying to persuade others to adopt their beliefs)
generally have extensively studied which arguments have the greatest effect
on the unprepared. Usually, these arguments are brief propositions that can
be memorized easily and regurgitated in large numbers. These arguments, by
the process of selection, tend not to have obvious refutations, and when
confronted by a refutation, the commonest tactic is to recite another
argument. This eliminates the need for actual understanding of the basis of
arguments, and greatly speeds the rate at which evangelists can be trained.

Without preparation, even blatantly fallacious arguments may disturb or
convince a targeted individual. Evangelists, who tend to be more interested
in effect than in accuracy, don't tend to point out that there are usually
lots of valid counterarguments available, sometimes known for millennia.

If the target is not the person spoken to (it may be a group of onlookers,
such as the lurkers in newsgroups or listeners on a radio show), we might
expect that the "discussion" will focus on making the person spoken to seem
wrong, ridiculous, uncomfortable, at a loss, etc.

Small wonder many people are not interested in entering "discussions" with
evangelists! They're likely to be out-prepared, swamped (or worse convinced)
by specious arguments, and possibly used as a cat's paw in the persuasion of
listeners.

The arguments treated here are not strawman misrepresentations: they are all
evangelistic arguments that have actually been made by libertarians. Many of
them have been made frequently. Although they are often used
evangelistically, we can't presume that someone making them doesn't
understand their basis or cannot support their argument. And on the other
hand, often other libertarians cringe when they hear these.

Most of these questions are phrased as assertions: that is simply a less
clumsy shorthand for "How could I respond to a libertarian claiming X?",
where X is the assertion.

1. The original intent of the founders has been perverted.

The founders of the USA were a contentious lot, who hardly agreed on
any one thing, let alone libertarian notions. It is well documented
that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are compromises amongst them:
few agreed wholeheartedly with any particular part. Thus, looking to
the founders for "original intent" is silly: it will vary amongst them.
Not to mention that "original intent" (or original understanding) is
just as open to interpretation as the Constitution itself because while
there is lots of explicit data, it is from many contradictory sources.
For example, Judge Bork presents notably non-libertarian versions of
original intent.

I think the best way to interpret the constitution is the way the
founders explicitly specified in the Constitution: look to the courts,
especially the Supreme Court. The Constitution leaves the method of its
interpretation by the court entirely to the court to decide. This begs
the question of how to judge the interpretive philosophies of the
possible justices, but libertarians seldom get that far.

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of
the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the
judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain
its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding
from the legislative body." Federalist No. 78.

There is no reason short of worship of the founders to presume that the
Supreme Court is less capable than the founders. Indeed, many
libertarians from outside the US find the authority of the founders
unconvincing. One writes: "As a Canadian, I don't give a _damn_ what
the `founders' intended. I hate it when a net.opponent trots out some
bit of tired U.S. history as a most holy of holies, not to be
questioned."

Jefferson himself said this plainly: "Some men look at constitutions
with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the
Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the
preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be
beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the
progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more
enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance
also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to
wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to
remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

2. The US Government ignores the plain meaning of the constitution.

Often this is presented as "The US wouldn't be so bad if the government
followed the Constitution."

"Plain meaning" is a matter of opinion. A plain meaning one century can
well be reversed in another, depending on popular usage, historical
context, etc. Well intentioned people can disagree on "plain meaning"
endlessly, as we see in any non-unanimous court decision. For practical
purposes, the meaning MUST be decided one way or another.

Libertarian claims of "plain meaning" are often clearly shaped by their
beliefs. Where this occurs, it's pretty obvious that their claims to
"plain meaning" are not "common sense".

3. The Declaration Of Independence says...

The Declaration Of Independence is a rhetorical document, without legal
standing in the USA. That status was a deliberate decision of the
founders, not an accident. If it is purported to reflect the intent of
the founders, then we can only conclude that they changed their minds
when writing the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution.

Nor should it be mistaken for a philosophical treatise: that was not
its purpose. If a libertarian would like to defend it as philosophy, he
should rely on sound argument, not reverence for the founders.

4. Libertarians are defenders of freedom and rights.

Libertarians frequently try to present themselves as the group to join
to defend your freedom and rights. Lots of other organizations (many of
which you would not want to be associated with, such as Scientologists)
also fight for freedom and rights. I prefer the ACLU. (Indeed, if you
wish to act effectively, the ACLU is the way to go: they advertise that
they take on 6,000 cases a year free of charge, and claim involvement
in 80% of landmark Supreme Court cases since 1920.)

It would be foolish to oppose libertarians on such a mom-and-apple-pie
issue as freedom and rights: better to point out that there are
EFFECTIVE alternatives with a historical track record, something
libertarianism lacks.

Nor might we need or want to accept the versions of "freedom" and
"rights" that libertarians propose. To paraphrase Anatole France: "How
noble libertarianism, in its majestic equality, that both rich and poor
are equally prohibited from peeing in the privately owned streets
(without paying), sleeping under the privately owned bridges (without
paying), and coercing bread from its rightful owners!"