Libertarians Against Washington and Jefferson

Continuing the discussion from this post, we have:

Delaware Libertarian: Answering Kevin Craig: on the misuses of history

who says,

Jefferson and Washington also believed that (a) African-Americans were mentally and physically inferior; (b) that it was acceptable to have a society in which some humans owned others as chattel property; (c) that women did not deserve the right of political participation; and (d) that it was acceptable to profit personally from land speculation deals that only became profitable because of their government connections.

Thus, by Kevin's logic, Libertarians should not oppose a candidate who is an outright racist (like Sonny Landham); believes in slavery ("Slavery: it gets [stuff] done"); or who opposes equal rights for women; or who believes that personal profiteering in Iraq is OK (can you say Haliburton?).

As to the issue of slavery, I'm convinced that "Delaware Libertarian" is just repeating the politically correct slander of our day. I've never seen any real evidence of these beliefs in the writings of Washington or Jefferson, and there is much against it:

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson & Slavery in Virginia

The Founding Fathers and Slavery

The Bible, Slavery, and America's Founders

Why would a libertarian be motivated to repeat such slander about Jefferson, the most libertarian of the Founders? Answer (I guess): because Jefferson and other Founders believed that homosexuality was contrary to "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

As to women's suffrage, I respect those who say women should not vote. I also respect those who say men should not vote. I respect those who say voting is an act of violence, an attempt to use the machinery of government to seize the property of others.

There were many voices two centuries ago who believed that only those who owned property should be allowed to vote. Logical, since those who didn't own property would be able to use the vote to seize the property of those who did. Jefferson said:

Every male citizen of the commonwealth liable to taxes or to militia duty in any county, shall have a right to vote for representatives for that county to the legislature."
--Thomas Jefferson: Notes for a Constitution, 1794

Voting in this sense can be seen as an act of self-defense.

Still, I find some very honest men who, thinking the possession of some property necessary to give due independence of mind, are for restraining the elective franchise to property."
--Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

Jefferson was a product of his times, but the logic of his position is better than the logic of today's "statesmen." The State was more libertarian in Jefferson's day than it is now that women vote.

Of course, I would want all libertarian women to be allowed to vote -- for me! Many don't vote at all. I don't blame them.

As to (d)

that it was acceptable to profit personally from land speculation deals that only became profitable because of their government connections

(e.g., Halliburton), I seriously doubt that Jefferson would be a friend of Dick Cheney, or support the land deals exposed by FoxNews. But I admit I don't know what "Delaware Libertarian" is talking about on this issue, so maybe he'll post a link to some informative article that can bring me up to speed.

"Delaware Libertarian" then criticizes an article I cited. "DL" contends that Gen. George Washington put a man out of the continental army for perjury, but not for sodomy. Look at Washington's own handwriting and see the emphasis he put on the word "sodomy," and then described his "abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes," then-current language for sodomy.

"Delaware Libertarian" describes Washington's views on sodomy as "the mores of a society over 225 years ago," and "their anachronistic or undesirable beliefs." But sodomists were not put out of the army based on personal opinion or ephemeral tastes. The "infamy" of which Washington speaks is based on "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," permanent, enduring, absolute moral standards. "Delaware Libertarian" would replace thousands of years of human understanding of moral absolutes with politically-correct fads, a position which does not say that human understanding of God's Laws is immature or flawed and needs to be corrected, but that there is no such thing as "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

Commenting on "Delaware Libertarian's" post, "Waldo" says:

It's apparent Mr. Craig doesn't view gay Americans as three-dimensional, flesh-and-blood humans. To him they seem to be sexual Dalaks intent on destroying our way of life on this planet.

Abstractions, in other words.

Waldo then describes all the personal things about him that I'm overlooking when I contend that homosexuality is contrary to "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God":

• a man in his 50s:
• community leader,
• churchgoer.
• In high school when he turned 18 he registered for the draft. Had his number come up, he'd have gone to Vietnam. It never occurred to him to do otherwise.
• He was a good Republican
• [possessed of] cheerful hopefulness in the face of the most hopelessly liberal campus this side of Harvard.
• He was an Eagle Scout back when that meant something.
• He was a regular, church-going, Presbyterian.
• He was devoted to his sprawling, multigenerational family.
• Coming [out] meant being handed his hat by most of his family; the Boy Scouts of America; the Republican Party; and the Presbyterian Church.

None of these things change my understanding of God's Law. I don't re-interpret "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" based on the personal characteristics, likes and dislikes of the one who advocates homosexuality.

Then he proceeds to treat me as an abstraction:

By Mr. Craig's lights, I guess that's exactly what I deserve, although he does seem to feel I am exempt from gratuitous public beatings.

It would be interesting to see the candidate Craigs of the world test their fortitude, and the courage of their convictions, by assuming the life of those they abhor.

I'd like to think being dumped on by family, friends and colleagues might be illuminative. Realistically, I rather doubt it. Mr. Craig is simply betting that you never lose money gay-bashing, and, in large swaths of the country, he's right.

Just don't be surprised when people like me tend to be censorious in their comments.

I have in fact been "illuminated" by being excommunicated by my church, preemptively disbarred by the California State Bar, and shunned by family and friends for being a radical libertarian. I do not accept campaign contributions from anyone, and I doubt seriously that anyone whom "Waldo" would identify as a "gay-basher" would contribute a penny to my radical libertarian campaign.

And yet, I'm still surprised when other people who claim to be enemies of totalitarianism and its two-party lapdog are "censorious" of me and say they won't vote for me, but would rather vote for the two-party monopoly.

I guess I feel like I'm being treated as an "abstraction."

But I also feel like this gives me some illumination into the pro-homosexual mindset: that pushing/endorsing homosexuality is more important to them than liberty as a broad social vision that endures for generations because it is based on moral absolutes.