Sunday, July 17, 2011

Liberaltarianism and our Founding Fathers...

As a compulsive debater, I'm glad I have a blog to answer hate mail. There's nothing positive or edifying about the letter below, but it gives me a chance to make a few comments.

Subject: Liberaltarianism and our Founding Fathers...
Date: Sun, July 17, 2011 3:08 pm
To: KevinCraig@KevinCraig.US

Please, do NOT call our Founding Fathers "Libertarian". They were not and never will be. By any of today's measures, even the liberals of THEIR day would be considered "ultra-conservative".

You Liberaltarians are little more than re-branded liberals trying to get over on an unsuspecting public, and your ilk are truly sick and out in left field - as Rep. Ron Paul exemplifies so handily.

Do not bother replying. This e-mail is sent from a "junk" spam account where all incoming mail is automatically deleted. I have no desire to hear your liberal nonsense.

For the record, I'm a Constitutionalist... if it isn't in our Constitution, it has no place in American life.

To the extent that the Founding Fathers opposed tyranny and British monarchy, they were libertarian. But the "liberals" of their day were also libertarians, so I don't know what the letter-writer is trying to say. Lew Rockwell writes:

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term liberalism generally meant a philosophy of public life that affirmed the following principle: societies and all their component parts need no central management and control because societies generally manage themselves through the voluntary interaction of its members to their mutual benefit.

I agree, however, that both the Founders and "liberals" would have been shocked at federally-funded abortion and homosexual "marriages." They were, on "social issues," ultra-conservatives.

"Liberaltarians" -- a term that came into vogue in late 2006 and went out of vogue a few months later -- refers to libertarians who think there are more points of common ground with left-leaning folks than with right-leaning folks. I disagree; both sides are hopeless. Or, both sides are equally fertile.

I am completely unaware of the late-breaking news that Ron Paul is a former liberal, that is, a former advocate of bigger government.

For those who haven't already read my "liberal nonsense," try here.

For my views on why anything that's not in the Constitution has no place in American life, see here, here, here, here, here, and maybe here.

No comments: