Libertarianism: The Threat and the Opportunity
August 16, 2008 by Stephen Palmer
How To Influence the Definition and Direction of Contemporary Libertarianism
Those who focus their energy on combating socialism are fighting a war that, by and large, has already been won. Collectivism, though at its apex and seemingly more powerful than ever, is on the decline; individualism is on the rise. With its rise, individualism, commonly known as libertarianism, poses threats to American culture and governance. It also provides significant, positive opportunities that have not been available for more than a century.
It is imperative that we identify the dangers of mainstream libertarian thought and provide alternatives in order to capitalize on the opportunity to create a balanced, sustainable, free, and just society. As is so common throughout history, we may swing the pendulum from collectivism to libertarianism to find that they are both equally dangerous and unsustainable. The danger posed by libertarianism — or the opportunity — is predicated upon how it will be defined and practically applied.
The Decline of Collectivism
Collectivist institutions are splitting at the seams and crumbling due to financial infeasibility, dramatically changing age demographics, and the cultural mediocrity that they instill. Foreign wars, which necessitate higher taxes and thus enable the centralization of power, are becoming less and less popular, both for financial and moral reasons. All forms of collectivism are showing themselves to be unsustainable as a matter of empirical fact, rather than subjective value judgment. The popularity of Ron Paul, and a general decline of trust in the government and other modern institutions, especially among the youth, also evidence the decline of collectivism.
The Fragmented Nature of Libertarianism
While there are universal tendencies shared by modern libertarians, libertarianism as a political movement and ideal has not yet gained the coherence necessary to appropriately use it as a specific, functional label. The tagline of the Libertarian Party is “Smaller government, Lower Taxes, More Freedom,” which is about as universal as the movement gets. However, Lew Rockwell — one of the most popular and widely read libertarian websites, boasts the tagline “Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market,” which is clearly more ideological, more concentrated, and therefore more divisive. While Ayn Rand preached the “virtue of selfishness,” Leo Tolstoy advocated self-transcendence and Christian service. And in contrast to Rand and Tolstoy, whose messages center on personal morals and values, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, and others generally avoid such concerns and focus primarily on the economic aspect of freedom.
Attempting to define libertarianism appears to be an irony and even a contradiction, since at its core libertarianism viscerally rejects any label or identification that would even hint at forced or inauthentic uniformity. As a response to collectivism — or sameness — libertarianism celebrates diversity and independent thought. However, since it appears to be the default heir to the decaying throne of American politics and culture, defining it is one of the most vital steps to steer it in the right direction. And doing so must take place within the context of identifying its flaws, in order to correct them.
Three Prominent Dangers of Libertarianism
In spite of its fragmented nature, libertarianism in general displays three universal characteristics that, unless replaced, will limit its impact and sustainability as a freedom movement. As a disclaimer, understand that identifying them is a difficult task, since libertarianism largely remains undefined and open to interpretation. In other words, if you identify yourself as a libertarian yet do not associate yourself with these flaws, then this does not apply to you. If the shoe fits, wear it; otherwise do your best to steer mainstream libertarianism in the right direction.
1. Self-Interest
A product of Ayn Rand, who has emerged as the preeminent spokesperson for modern libertarianism, self-interest is expressed in the oath taken by Rand’s ultimate hero, John Galt: “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.” (Compare to Christ’s words in John 15:13.) At the heart of libertarian thought seems to be the sentiment, “I want to be left alone to live my life the way I see fit.”
While the quest to be free from governmental oppression is natural and commendable, this is hardly an inspiring alternative to liberalism. The pursuit of self-interest may be a fact of human nature, but deep down we know we’re capable of nobler motivations, especially as we witness heroic examples of selfless service from Jesus Christ, Gandhi, George Washington and his soldiers, Viktor Frankl, and Mother Teresa and others. Wanting to be left alone to pursue one’s self-interest is a poor substitute for wanting to make the world a better place.
2. Flawed Definition of Freedom
The default definition of libertarian freedom is the freedom to do whatever a person wants, as long as they do not harm or encroach upon the natural rights of others. In other words, “license” is probably a more accurate word than “freedom.”
Johnny Kramer, columnist for Lew Rockwell, recently wrote an article entitled What Libertarianism is Not wherein he says, “Libertarianism is not a philosophy of morality or a guide to proper behavior. It is simply a political philosophy that holds that everyone should be legally free (in other words, free from coercion) to do as they please, so long as they don’t violate anyone’s body or property (in other words, so long as they don’t initiate coercion against anyone else); and that the State, if it should exist, should be bound by the same rules as the rest of society.”
This misguided and limited definition quickly degenerates into hedonism, decadence, and ultimately, societal decay, as displayed by the Greeks and Romans.
3. Emphasizes Individualism; Downplays Family, Community, and Religion
As James Ure wrote in a previous article, “Tellingly, the word ‘individual’ appears fifteen times in the first twenty sentences of the [Libertarian Party] platform, but the words ‘family’ and ’school’ only appear once each, the words ‘church’ or ‘religion’ only appear a few times, and the words ‘community’ and neighborhood’ do not appear at all.”
As we also learn from Mr. Ure, family, community, and religion are “institutional mediating entities” that balance the desires for individual freedom with the demands of communal cooperation. An overly individualistic society is a fragmented, unsustainable society, lacking forms to perpetuate itself.
Three Counter-Balancing Ideals
To counteract the above three dangers of libertarianism, three ideals should replace them, with a deliberate, conscious, and transparent effort: public virtue, an expanded definition of freedom, and a shift from focusing on the individual to focusing on family, community, and religion.
1. Public Virtue
“There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honour, Power and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real liberty.” -John Adams
As one of the Four Foundations of Freedom, public virtue means to voluntarily sacrifice personal benefit for the good of society. For example, Robert Morris, a relatively obscure figure in American history, was one of the wealthiest colonists who spent his entire fortune — and even borrowed from others — to finance the Revolutionary War.
As Oliver DeMille writes, “One [historical] record remarked: ‘If it were not [proven] by official records, posterity would hardly be made to believe that the campaign…was sustained wholly on the credit of an individual merchant.’ When the War ended, this self-made millionaire spent three and a half years in debtors prison after he lost everything. His wife…watched possession after possession disappear during the War. When Robert went to prison after giving so much to the cause of freedom, she tended a borrowed little farm and walked each day to the prison with her daughter Maria to visit her husband. Robert left prison a broken down old man and died shortly thereafter. The financier of the Revolution, and his family, understood public virtue…”
In most cases, such a profound display is not necessary; we simply have to do our best to serve others on a daily basis. It’s grossly incomplete to proclaim that the government should not take care of people; those who are able and privileged have the duty to care for the handicapped and the aged, serve the underprivileged, uplift the impoverished, and educate the illiterate. The easiest and best way to eliminate bureaucratic and illegitimate government entitlement programs is to replace them with private institutions operated voluntarily by virtuous individuals.
Most libertarians believe that the proper role of government is to protect unalienable rights. But keeping the government contained in its proper sphere is predicated upon the people expanding their love of rights to include a strict adherence to their duties to their fellow man. As Viktor Frankl wrote, “Being human always points, and is directed, to something or someone other than oneself — be it a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself — by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love — the more human he is and the more he actualized himself…Self-actualization is only possible as a side-effect of self-transcendence.”
Instead of starting with the thought, “I want to be left alone,” a better approach would be to start with, “I want to do my best to serve others so that the government doesn’t have to.” The one says, “Leave me alone”; the other says, “How can I serve?” It’s obvious which one leads to a more healthy, sustainable society. The incomplete sentence, “The government should not redistribute wealth” must be finished with “…and the people have the duty to ensure that all members of society are well cared for.” The rejection of forced charity must never lead to the neglect of the right forms of voluntary charity. (Which, by the way, is exactly what Ayn Rand’s philosophy does.)
2. Expand the Definition of Freedom
Freedom is so much more than being free from the illegitimate constraints of the government. Freedom is a much broader, more comprehensive concept than “freedom from“; it also includes “freedom to.” The new definition of freedom must include two critical aspects: 1) a primary focus on how an individual can become personally, internally free regardless of external circumstance, and 2) the fusion of rights with duties.
Spiritual, financial, physical, mental, and emotional freedom are ultimately far more important than governmental freedom, since the one is predicated upon the other; the more personally free individuals are in a society, the more free their government will be. Viktor Frankl, locked in a concentration camp cell, is more free than the drug or pornography addict in America. As Edmund Burke said, “Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.”
It’s nice to be free from governmental tyranny. But we must also realize that we are free to love in the face of hatred, forgive cruelty without hesitation or reservation, to love those who hurt us as much as we love those who honor us. We are free to eradicate all feelings of revenge, bitterness, enmity, and malice; to replace hatred with love, bitterness with understanding, pride with humility, vengefulness with forgiveness, cruelty with mercy and compassion. We are free to choose how we respond to oppression.
Furthermore, we must realize that inherent with our rights to freedom are corresponding duties. We have a right to free government; we also have the duty to maintain such a government. As Thomas Paine wrote, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.” We have the right to do whatever we choose to do with our bodies; we have the duty to be true to marital covenants and to protect the unalienable rights of unborn children. We have the right to view whatever we want; we have the duty to shun pornography in all its forms. We have the right to administer our finances how we see fit; we have the duty to stay out of debt and produce more than we consume.
Political philosophy removed from personal morality is like an individual without a heart or an automobile without an engine; personal morality is what makes political and economic liberty function. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
3. Shift From Individualism To Familial & Communal Association
Healthy society isn’t comprised of individualistic hedons doing whatever they feel like doing; it’s comprised of virtuous, faithful, and tight-knit families and communities who know and serve one another, who provide support and encouragement to each other, who work together, who mourn with each other, and who share a common heritage and common values.
Collectivism and individualism are opposite sides of the same imbalanced coin. Family, community, and religion provide balance. They preserve and perpetuate culture. They restore society when it has lost its way. While collectivism leads to an oppressive, centralized breakdown of society, individualism causes divisive decay. The solution to each is to bolster the health, strength, and vitality of family, community, and religion.
Conclusion: The Opportunity
Libertarianism has an unprecedented opportunity to reclaim America’s freedom. But to do so it must eliminate its flaws and define itself appropriately. Specifically, it must eliminate the flaws of misguided self-interest, a limited definition of freedom, and an excessive focus on individualism. It must define itself as a movement that includes political and economic freedom from oppression, as well as personal freedom to do what’s right. It must stress duties as much as it stresses rights. It must shift from individualism to communalism — not forced or governmentally-imposed collectivism, but voluntary familial, communal, and religious associations. The foundation of libertarianism must be much more than wanting to be left alone; it must be based on a desire to serve, to contribute in meaningful and lasting ways to society.
Some may say that these proposed ideals stray from being universal. While it’s imperative for any movement to stick with universals in order to create coherency and momentum, it’s even more important to define what those universals are. If the libertarian universals are simply “smaller government, less taxes, and more freedom,” the impact and sustainability of libertarianism will be severely limited. If, on the other hand, it expands its universal tenets to include the morality of public virtue, the depth of personal freedom beyond mere political and economic freedom, and the necessity of strong families, communities, and religious associations, it can be the movement that restores the American republic and secures liberty for generations to come.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
Comments
11 Responses to “Libertarianism: The Threat and the Opportunity”
Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
-
Free Newsletter Subscription
Subscribe to The Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and receive two free gifts. Your personal information will never be shared.
Subscribe To The Cause Of LibertyPolls
Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...
I will give this some serious thought. I want to make sure I understand your premise. At first read through, I disagree with the same things which I have voiced before.
Steve, I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish on this site and I agree with much of it. Thank you for what you are trying to do. However, I feel you are making some mistakes. Between you and Mike you are very anti-libertarian. I have two problems with that. First, your definition is based mostly in Rand and Rothbard (also you mention Mises and Hazlitt, but if you read more of them you will find they are very moral people). That is like basing the definition of Christian Theology on Aquinas and Pope Benedict . That may be one perspective under a much larger umbrella but not the only view. Furthermore, as you suggest libertarianism has yet to be fully defined. So why define it so narrowly and then burn most people who somewhat identify with the title. It would be much more effective to try to sway those people and diplomatically persuade them to see the problems of freedom defined only as license.
Secondly, why fight those who agree with you on so many levels. It is way too early to start drawing lines in the sand. These people can be your allies. Why not befriend them, build on common beliefs and have a friendly discussion over time.
Furthermore, you suggest in your blog post that Socialism and Collectivism is on the decline. That may be true in the Caucasian West (although there is a lot of argument the other way too) but we are seeing socialisms resurgence in South America and its evolution into Autocratic Capitalism (which is collectivistic at its core) throughout many other parts of the world. Whether you agree with libertarians 100% or not, they can be your allies against this much stronger despotism (Autocratic Capitalism).
Remember not all patriots in the early colonies agreed in their political philosophy. In fact all that really mattered during the war is that they were against the British. After the war came the slow and arduous process of teaching and persuading the American people to buy into the constitution and its system.
Anyway, let me know what you think of what I have said.
The war against collectivism has already been won? Really??? Then how do you explain George Bush and his lackey GOP Congress increasing spending faster than at any time since LBJ’s Great Society??? Ah, political opportunism…. Yes, the political opportunism of the Democrats and Republicans is the final threat to our great republic.
Stephen said, “Spiritual, financial, physical, mental, and emotional freedom are ultimately far more important than governmental freedom, since the one is predicated upon the other.”
I think this is the crux of the argument. Private and public virtue are inseparable.
I appreciate very much the work that you put in to cause others to THINK….. Thanks! In my line of business I have the pleasure of meeting many hedonists, and they are breeders (breeding exponentially). With this rising demograph, we can expect to see some exponential changes in our government systems. It will be amazing and I hope to experience it all. Of course I’ll do my part.
Steve, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with your point of view on the dangers presented by the limitations of libertarian philosophy. I think your ideas regarding public virtue, expanding our definition of freedom, and focusing more on the mediating entities of family, community, and religious groups are right on.
Steve, I have been reading your articles and mostly agreeing with you, however I believe that this article demonstrates an ignorance of the founders and the Constitution that is gaping. The founding fathers were emphatic that the individuals liberty outweighed the authority of the central government.
Thomas Jefferson stated that “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. ”
The key to what you call individualism is that the Constitution provided that anything that it did not specifically cover was to be left to the states. If you support national government imposing their views on the citizens of all states, then you in fact do not wish to follow the Constitution at all. As for the morality path that you like to mention John Adams warned that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Again, a Founding Father points to the foundation of this country being based in the individual.
I sense that the reason so many people shun the whole concept of a true Republican Form of government (with the true power being given to the individual over the government) is that they are too lazy and want government to provide them with solutions to moral problems. the statement “you gotta stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.” comes to mind.
Despotism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism has not been defeated, we see the fruits of these failed philosophies every day in Washington DC.
Again to Quote John Adams “Be not intimidated… nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.”
Justice and Liberty forever!
Skip, thanks for the input and the compliment. I don’t fully understand your perspective, but I sincerely would like to.
You state that, “…this article demonstrates an ignorance of the founders and the Constitution that is gaping. The founding fathers were emphatic that the individuals liberty outweighed the authority of the central government.”
Perhaps I’m simply not understanding you, but I can’t find anywhere in the article where I promote or even suggest that the authority of the central government outweighs the liberty of individuals. You and I are in complete agreement on that point. As Frederic Bastiat wrote, “Life, liberty and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”
You also say, “If you support national government imposing their views on the citizens of all states, then you in fact do not wish to follow the Constitution at all.” Again, can you help me understand your perspective by highlighting where I promote this view in this article?
My view is that the 17th Amendment, which overwhelmingly reduced the power of the states and increased the power of the Federal Government was the most crippling and devastating act ever perpetrated on the Constitution.
Will you help me understand your point better by pointing out exact phrases where we disagree, or where I manifest a glaring ignorance of the Founders and the Constitution? I think, or at least I hope, that we have more to agree on than to disagree.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Stephen
Steve,
I feel like your approach is both balanced and accurate. Libertarianism is providing some of our greatest sources for real freedom scholarship; but it is also rearing up the future enemies of family, religion, and national unity. While balanced approaches like this tend to draw criticisms from those on the fringe on both sides of the aisle, they often, counter-intuitively, are the approaches that require the most restraint from all. And freedom has always been built on self-restraint.
I agree with athblogger about finding the common ground and building allies instead of enemies, and I think this article is a good example of that.
Steve,
In the article you comment that “This misguided and limited definition quickly degenerates into hedonism, decadence, and ultimately, societal decay, as displayed by the Greeks and Romans.” regarding the Writings by Johnny Kramer. You are incorrect in that assessment. In fact, Thomas Jefferson himself supported that philospohy by saying “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
By supporting and promoting the right of the individual to make his own choices relative to actions that are or are not taken, there is no implication that morality shouldn’t exist in society, only that ones morality should not impede or interfere with the life or morality of another. This is consistent with what Christ taught as well. Although we should implore people to live a Christian life, we cannot enforce it. Love (and servitude) not given freely means nothing.
As for Family and Church, those are choices made bythe individual, and yes due to selfish natures, the divorce rate is over 50% of all marriages. That is truly tragic, but it is concurrent with the fact that many of the “churches” and schools have become politically correct havens of government indoctrination. These institutions combine to teach a form of collective socialism rather than the gospel and basic tenets of education. In fact my 17 year old son calls high school a “Mandatory Government Indoctrination Camp” because of the socialist agenda he is required to endure.
I will address the other comment when I have more time (need to spend some time with momma and my boys).
Thanks for the response,
Skip
I must respectfully disagree with a number of points made in this article. I believe the first mistake Mr. Palmer has made is in equating the governmental concept of libertarianism with the braoder concept of individualism. There are some very important distinctions between the two.
First, libertarianism is a philosophy pertaining to the role of government, not the individual. Libertarianism is silent on the individual’s social or religious ideals or practices. It does not require the individual to adhere to a belief or a disbelief in deity. It does not require the individual to be an entreprenure, a wage or salary earner, or an investor. It does not require the individual to give to any particular charitable or service organizations, or even any at all. It does not require nor forbid the individual from belonging to a labor union. It does not require one to hold to a specific set of moral beliefs. In short, it requires nothing from the individual save a commitment to respecting the rights and liberties of every other individual equally with his or her own and a sense of duty to participate in the maintenance of the government which protects these rights and liberties by paying one’s taxes, answering the summons to appear for jury duty or as a witness in a legal proceding, and if necessary taking up arms or in some other meaningful way rendering support in the defence of one’s Nation from any agressors (whether foreign or domestic).
Individualism, on the other hand, only embraces some of the principles of libertarian government, rejecting others. Individualism may better be equated with anarchy rather than with a libertarian form of government. Individualism rejects the concepts of community, communalism, collectivism, and nationalism. It rejects the idea that more can be gained by joining with others for mutual benefit, and it rejects the idea of duty to the other members of a voluntarily formed community.
Secondly, the idea that self-interest is somehow a vice, a detriment or a critical flaw is a denial of one the most most fundamental truths of nature, both human and otherwise. It is by no means the creation of Ayn Rand, although she is one of the preeminent champions of the idea that self-interest is a virtue, not a vice. I find it rather interesting, however, that you believe John Galt’s oath is primarily about self-interest when in fact it is a declaration against the use of force or tyranny upon or by the individual making the oath. Perhaps it would have been better stated, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never be the slave of another man, nor enslave another man for my own sake.” It is a declaration of a commitment to liberty, both one’s own, and that of one’s neighbor. Then consider that your supposedly self-less heroes such as Jesus also espoused liberty as well. These moralistic teachers simply went further by advocating compassionate service to others without explicitly tying it individual self-interest as Rand did.
While both individualism and libertarianism recognize the preeminence of self-interest in human behavior, individualism ignores the existence of any other’s self-interest but it’s own and in extreme cases may result in the selfish exploitation of others. Libertarianism, by contrast, disallows the selfish exploitaiton of others for individual self-interest, recognizing that the limits of the exercise of one’s self-interest ends where it adversely impacts the self-interest of another.
Thirdly, that libertarianism downplays family, community, and religion is simply indicative of the philosophy of government non-interference. It is a recognition that any such entities of voluntary association which might arise function best without governmental interference. Furthermore, it is a recognition that it falls outside of the proper role of government to favor any particular group, organization, or religion over another or over the individual; that to do otherwise necessarily infringes upon the rights and liberties of those individuals who are not members of such organizations who are nevertheless compelled to support them through their taxes.
Individualism, on the other hand downplays family, community, and most religion on the basis that such entities are focused not on the individual, but on the collective. Extreme individualism has no use for such entities; whereas libertarianism not only recognizes their utility and the value most individuals have of these and it seeks to protect such entities from the unlawful initiation of force to destroy them.
All that having been said, I wish to speak somewhat on what Palmer regards as the checks or solutions to what he perceives to be the problems of libertarianism which are in fact merely the problems of extreme individualism.
Public virtue is the voluntary sacrifice of the portion of one’s self-interest which is limited in scope to oneself or one’s family, for one’s self-interest of greater or transcendant scope — the benefit of one’s community or the world. Certainly one would not be willing to sacrifice their time, money, or other possessions, or even their life for a cause which they did not share or that which opposed their individual self-interest.
Nevertheless, while ensuring public virtue is not a responsibility of government, it is nevertheless a libertarian ideal to encourage public virtue without mandating, coercing, or compelling it. While demonstrating a lack of need for government welfare programs and government funded schools may be more persuasive in eliminating such progams due to the existence of privately funded programs and schools, it should not therefore be regarded as a prerequisite.
The notion that the people have a duty to ensure that all members of society are well cared for asks the question: whence comes this duty? What is the extent of this duty? To what degree is one obligated to deprive themselves and their family to provide for those who are not? The religious will usually attribute the source of such a duty to God, but what of the atheist, or those that don’t believe God requires such? Even though I do not believe I have a moral obligation or duty to help others, out of my own sense of empathy and compassion for others and the self-interested hope of fostering a similar empathy in others toward myself and those I care about, I do seek to serve others, including those who have little or nothing to offer me in return beyond their gratitude and well-wishing.
The notion that freedom includes a fusion of rights and duties is, I believe, a good idea, but only to the extent that such duties are to uphold the laws of the community, state, nation, etc., and to participate in the other ways which help to perpetuate a community that maintains the rights and liberties of every individual equally. Such duties should not be understood to extend to the aforementioned charitable actions towards others.
Edmund Burke’s comment about the contraints that must be placed upon will and appetite refer to the tendancy toward public vice, that is to say, the tendancy towards tyranny and the imposition of one’s will upon others. In the absense of the privately held ideal of maximum liberty for all, there must be constraints placed up leaders and would be criminals to prevent them from infringing upon the rights and liberties of others.
It is true that we have the right to do whatever we choose with our own bodies; however that right is limited by the rights of others that might be harmed by our actions or negligence. As to the alleged unalienable rights of unborn children, this is a particularly difficult issue since, the determination of precisely when a fertilized egg beceomes an individual human being with unalienable rights is fluid at best. Even various religious traditions are in disagreement on this matter, although most agree that preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg or terminating a pregnancy within the first few days after conception is not the same as a terminating a third trimester fetus.
Furthermore, there is wide and varying disagreement as to the alleged duty to shun pornogaphy in all its forms. Certainly there is a duty to shun pornography that is the result of coercion or force, especially that involving minors, just as there is a duty to shun any other crimes or the fruit of such crimes.
As to the duty to “stay out of debt” (precisely what is meant by debt?) or produce more than we consume, this too despends on the circumstances of the individual. An individual whom another has voluntarily elected to provide for their needs does not have a duty to produce more than they consume. At most, those who are a burden upon society have a duty to minimize that burden as far as is reasonbly possible.
Individualism and collectivism are not balanced by family, community, and religion except to the extent that these institutions tend to teach the principles of liberty (eschewing the initiation of force), personal responsibility, and empathy and compassionate service to others in need. When family, community, and religion fail in these respects, they naturally devolve into the tyranny of collectivism or into anarchy.
Libertarianism’s real challenge is to make liberty more popular than limited tyranny, individual responsibility more popular than collective irresponsibility, and voluntary service and charity the solution to the problem of the poor, rather than confiscation and redistribution of wealth. Only by doing these will our Nation fulfill the dream of our founding fathers and avoid the nightmare it’s currently heading towards by following the traditional two-party system of alternating socialism and Corporate Feudalism.