All Things Expounded

My buddy Ian provided me with a blog post from Joe Carter Virtue Ethics and Broken Windows or Why I Am Not a Libertarian.

Joe Carter is a pretty good blogger, and I must say his blog Between Two Worlds is great. However, I must respectfully disagree with his conclusions in this particular post.

I cringe when people accuse libertarianism of having a romanticized view of human nature or ignoring human nature. First of all, I don’t think libertarianism in and of itself has a philosophical or theological position on the nature of humans.  It does presuppose treating others in a certain way. That is, not purporting to run their lives.  And in a sense, all descent people in practice treat others as if human nature were good to some extent.  I believe in the depravity of mankind, but that position does not cause me to treat every one with suspicion, nor does that cause me to purport to have authority to run their lives for them.  I believe men are fallen, but in some degree I am called to live  assuming the best of others. I want to, as much as possible, to treat others as if they are good, at least in areas where such treatment will not open myself to a blatent loss of property, or allowing them to injure myself or others I love.  This to me fits with the libertarian view of politics. Does this mean I am naive about human nature? No, far from it! It means I so strongly believe in the Christian view of human nature that not only do I know my neighbours will for himself is fallen, but also my “do good” desire to impose my will on him!! We can not use human nature as a one-way excuse for tyranny. The tyranny is an extension of fallenness as well.

For another similar perspective on Libertarianism and human nature, I recommend reviewing Is Libertarianism a Heresy? by Stephen W. Carson.

Another reason why the statement “libertarianism depends on a romanticized view of human nature” makes me cringe is because if one is to think about it, the critique applies to just about any non-libertarian political philosophy equally well, including the one Joe Carter is proposing! If the libertarianism is naive about human nature from below, what Joe Carter has concluded is naive about human nature from above.  If libertarians are naive about the end result of individual liberty, Joe Carter is naive about end result of state planning.  If human nature disqualifies man from largely politically governing himself, then how much more is he disqualified from governing a bunch of others!!! If the libertarian is naive about fallen man’s ability to order his own life politically, then Joe Carter position is naive about the sort of “order” a government made up of fallen man can impose upon society.

I do not believe being libertarian means you see liberty as “the chief end of man” as Joe seems to suggest. Politically, though, we have no basis to even start discussing other good in society without liberty.  Joe makes appeals to concepts like “society” and “community”, but tends to delink these concepts from the fate of the individual. How can we even talk about the good of the community, until the individuals in that community are free to pursue those ends which they see fit in regard to their property, at least free from a political sense.

Now, I am not some sort of anarchist. So I’m not saying that there should be no government.  I’m not saying the government shouldn’t restrain certain things, I’m just saying the list ought to be really, really, short.  The government should restrain crimes, not vices.   And what I’m saying is that if it is naive of libertarians to think that individuals with fallen human natures should be free to on their own decide what vices they will partake in, so long as they do not directly affect others, then it is doubly naive to suppose that the government, made up of such fallen men, will impose such a decision in a good way, contrary to their fallen nature. If the individual is fallen, oh how the government is fallen too!  Order may not arise spontaneously, but experience has also taught us that it doesn’t tend to arise from government either, at least not for long.  And if we really believe man is fallen through and through, we will conclude that we need to be protected just as much from the government as from the individuals liberty.  Joe Carter’s analysis doesn’t seem to account for this.

I also have a lot of questions about this “virtue ethics” he mentions, and how the government would enforce this virtue ethic. Some of the philosophical points he makes seem sort of nebulous, especially when examined in light of practical political matters.

Really, the state has been the one institution over history which has tended to have the romanticized view human nature. Statists are the ones that want governments that can impose good in its people in non-criminal matters, hence assuming a naive view of the nature of people in government. And also assuming a naive view of whether these governmental sanctions can actually reform human nature. In fact, utopian statists have been the ones who have most boldly rejected the Biblical view of human nature, seeing man’s perfection in the state-man.

Anyways, this is sort of quickly written because I’ve been real busy as late. But these are my immediate thoughts, perhaps not very polished or well-thought out!!