United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: No, The American Founders Were Not Libertarians
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/02 ... can-founders-not-libertarians/
Published: May 2, 2017
Author: Jonathan Ashbach
Post Date: 2018-01-25 08:43:41 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 3261
Comments: 148
Libertarians are still trying to claim the American Founding as theirs. One occasionally hears the argument that the principles of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are libertarian. One of the most recent instances of this claim resides in Nikolai Wenzel’s first-rate defense of libertarianism in “Selfish Libertarians and Socialist Conservatives?” (Stanford: 2017). Yet a closer look at the Founders’ thought about government makes clear that it was anything but libertarian. Wenzel notes there are different types of libertarianism. He clarifies that “unless I specify otherwise, I will use the term libertarian to mean minarchy.” Minarchist libertarianism holds that government exists only to protect individuals’ rights. “A libertarian government is forbidden from doing almost everything,” Wenzel states. “In fact, a libertarian government is empowered to do only one thing: defend individual rights.” Wenzel’s argument for a libertarian Founding rests largely on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Indeed, his claims do seem superficially persuasive. The Constitution limits the federal government to the exercise of a few specific powers. Surely, this is a classic instance of libertarian philosophy limiting the sphere of government, is it not? As Wenzel argues, “By and large, the enumerated powers granted to the federal government under Article I, section 8, are in line with libertarian philosophy.” He recognizes that elements of the Constitution violate libertarian principles, but his overall evaluation is that “The U.S. Constitution was largely a libertarian document.” The Declaration, argues Wenzel, is more explicitly libertarian. It declares that all possess natural rights and that governments are created to protect those rights. “There, then,” says Wenzel, “is the political philosophy of the Declaration: The purpose of government is to protect rights. Period.” He calls this “a minimalist philosophy with which any libertarian would agree.” The Fatal Flaw: A Different Understanding of Rights So far, all of this sounds quite convincing, but there is a fatal flaw in Wenzel’s argument. Both libertarians and the American Founders describe the purpose of government as the protection of rights. But by “rights” they mean two very different things. For Wenzel, respecting others’ rights simply means refraining from coercion. The state exists only to protect rights, and therefore, “the state itself may not engage in any coercion, except to prevent coercion.” He argues that participants in immoral trades, such as “The drug pusher, the prostitute, and the pornographer,” do not violate others’ rights “as long as they do not coercively impose their wares on others.” Nor does the polygamist. Wenzel’s coauthor Nathan Schlueter points out the problem with this position: “Libertarianism essentially denies that…moral harms exist and maintains that the only real injustice is coercion. Accordingly, it promotes a legal regime in which some individuals are legally entitled to harm others in noncoercive ways.” Wenzel assumes that only coercion violates rights. The Founders profoundly disagreed. A Second Look at the Founding Creed Think again about the alleged libertarianism of the Founding documents. Wenzel makes a common mistake in assuming that the limitation of the national government to a few specific enumerated powers reflects libertarian belief. But this limitation has nothing to do with libertarianism. It has everything to do with federalism. The federal government was only created to fulfill certain limited, particular purposes. It was not created to do everything the Founders believed government should do. Most of those functions—and, on the whole, those less compatible with libertarianism—were entrusted to the states. The fact that the enumerated powers of the federal government are largely consistent with libertarianism does not mean the Founders were libertarians. It means nothing at all, in fact. It is a conclusion based on only half the data. Actually, the enumeration of federal powers is more an accident of history than anything else. James Madison’s original proposal was that the national government simply possess blanket authority “to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent.” The Constitutional Convention ultimately chose to list its powers, believing this was less liable to abuse, but this decision was by no means dictated by the Founders’ beliefs about government. As for the Declaration, it does not say that government exists only to protect individuals’ life, liberty, and property. A libertarian right to be free of coercion is not intended here. Instead, the Declaration states that life and liberty are included “among” the natural rights of mankind, as is something else referred to as “the pursuit of happiness.” The right to happiness was not simply sweet-sounding rhetoric. It was the centerpiece of the Founders’ political theory. Government for the Common Good The Founders’ political theory was not libertarian, because they believed that the preeminent human right was happiness. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, for example, states: “All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness” (emphases added). As the language makes clear, the rights of man could be expressed as a list of rights that includes life, liberty, and property. But the great right that encompassed all others was the right to pursue (or even obtain!) happiness. Assertions of this right to happiness appear in many Founding-Era writings, including other state constitutions. The purpose of government, in turn, was to help people achieve happiness by promoting their good. Delegate to the Constitutional Convention James Wilson wrote one of the most thorough expositions of the Founding philosophy—his famous “Lectures on Law.” In them, he explains that the purpose of government is to promote the well-being of those subject to it: “Whatever promotes the greatest happiness of the whole,” that is what government should do. Once again, this sort of talk is commonplace. Twelve of the 13 original states adopted a constitution in the Founding Era. Every one of these states described the purpose of government as promoting the well-being of citizens. The New Hampshire constitution of 1784 is typical, holding that “all government…is…instituted for the general good.” What Conservative Governance Means Because the general good includes the moral good, this meant discouraging immoral behavior. Wenzel speaks of voluntary drug and sexual matters as beyond the purview of a libertarian government. But such laws were universal in early America. Thus Mark Kann writes in “Taming Passion for the Public Good” that “the state’s right to regulate sexual practices…was undisputed” in early America, and Wilson notes bigamy, prostitution, and indecency as offenses subject to punishment on Founding political theory. Similarly, in “Federalist” 12, Alexander Hamilton cites the beneficial impact on morals as a justification for federal taxation of alcoholic imports. The Founders used government to discourage other noncoercive activities, as well. In 1778, Congress recommended to the states “suppressing theatrical entertainments, horse-racing, gambling, and such other diversions as are productive of idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners.” In his book, “The People’s Welfare,” William Novak details the extensive regulation of everything from lotteries and usury to Sunday travel, coarse language, and poor relief that was the norm during the Founding Era. The American Founders believed that government exists to protect rights, just as libertarians do. But their understanding of rights was radically different from the libertarian understanding. Libertarians like Wenzel believe that protecting rights means prohibiting coercion. The Founders believed that protecting rights meant seeking the moral and material well- being of society. The American Founding was conservative, not libertarian. Libertarians will have to look elsewhere to support their beliefs. Jonathan Ashbach is a PhD student in politics at Hillsdale College. Jonathan has worked in the hospitality industry and as assistant editor for the Humboldt Economic Index. His work has also been published on Patheos and Christianity Today.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 139.
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Ah, so he's a former night clerk who spent his spare time wiping up loads in some roach motel and who is now trying to become a Hillsdale theocon. The Founders were most certainly libertarians. But they had an Enlightenment ideal of liberty. To them, liberty meant freedom from a distant tyrant ruling their lives. It meant a Bill of Rights that guaranteed liberty from any central government that did anything more than keep up a few trade roads and bridges and some common defense against the machinations of England/France/Spain to reclaim this continent for themselves. Nearly all the coinage of the era bore the image of Lady Liberty (mere pols were not allowed on coins). The French gave us the Statue of Liberty because that was considered the hallmark of the American Revolution. At the very least, the Deists of the Founding era were much closer to modern libertarians than to the theocons of Hillsdale. And most of the Founders would not be allowed to attend Hillsdale if they were alive today. Not religious enough.
You're not that dumb are you? Libertarian means amoral. They were not libertarians. That is a silly notion.
Such an ignorant statement.
Amoral, not immoral. And Libertarianism IS amoral.
Thank you misterwhite. They certainly are amoral.
I begin to think you don't grasp the difference between amoral and immoral. You keep saying 'amoral' when you seem to intend 'immoral'. Oxford Concise Dictionary:
Libertarians take no moral position on abortion, gambling, prostitution, porn, suicide, or age of consent. They simply say the government should not be involved in those areas. To me, that's an amoral position. By definition.
To me, that's an amoral position. By definition. That isn't universal because thee are, for instance, libertarians that are very pro-life. Perhaps a majority of Libertarian Party members are still pro-life (though the leadership is not). But there are many kinds of libertarians and they emphasize different aspects of libertarian philosophy. For instance, a majority of libertarians embrace the Non-Aggression Principle. These are essentially pacifists who do believe in a right to self-defense, the so-called natural-rights libertarians. But that is just one flavor of libertarian. You also have the Objectivists, people who advocate for Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. You have anarcho-capitalists. And Left-libertarians. And lots of others. The libertarians are by no means a monolithic group. They're a herd of cats.
Yet you felt comfortable characterizing the Founders as Libertarians.
Yet you felt comfortable characterizing the Founders as Libertarians. What do you think your point is? The Founders themselves were far from being a monolithic group. Look how quickly the Federalist and Antifederalist factions squared up to fight it out politically. Many of the Founders were quite concerned to prevent other Founders from taking the country in a particular direction.
Yes. And today we might label some as liberals and some as conservatives, yet you you you chose to label all of them "Libertarians With Exceptions". Why not "Conservatives With Exceptions"?
The conservatives of the era were all royalist Tories. And back then, some of them actually would pack up and move out of the country. Many moved to Toronto. Which we then burned (retaliation for burning D.C.). The Founders were the biggest radicals of their era. Only the later French Revolution (Reign of Terror) was more radical until you get to the many revolutions around 1850 when the power of Europe's monarchs were finally broken, in large part because of America's ongoing "bad example". The Founders were not conservatives. They were fairly radical Englishmen living in English colonies.
Got it. The conservatives were a monolithic group. Probably the liberals, too. Only Libertarians can claim not to be monolithic.
None of them are actually monolithic but some come closer. Republicans in Blue states are nowhere close to conservatives from the Bible Belt. Similarly, the liberal-Left Xlinton faction of the Dems (probably still a voting majority) is much more numerous than the noisier Bernie Bros Bolsheviki. And libertarians are a mixed bag too. So were the Founders. That was kinda the point I was making. I'll repeat my point: the Founders were far and away the most radical political thinkers of the entire Enlightenment era. And their republic endures today, well over two centuries later, something you can't say for other democratic countries (excepting Britain). The others all fell into dictatorship or conquest at one point or another or they are far younger governments than ours is. Our relative isolation helped but our political system, despite its many flaws, is more resilient than the parliamentary democracies.
But they never applied that radical thinking to their own states. They created the U.S. Constitution -- a radical document that defined and limited the newly formed federal government only. It would have been very easy to extend the federal Bill of Rights to the states when it was written. The Founders chose not to.
They were still Englishmen with all the baggage of the era. At the risk of stating the obvious, they were the richest and most desired colony in the world with unimaginable wealth on the continent. And they instituted a government that entirely lacked a monarch. That alone made them extreme radicals. It is worth mentioning that Cromwell did execute his king, Charles I, (rightfully IMO) and then made himself the Lord Protector (dictator for life) of England and Britain. So that did provide an example well-known to the Founders of rule by non-monarchs but the Founders couldn't have desired to overthrow a tyrant just to replace him with a different tyrant. They wanted an entirely new order, a Novus ordo secularum, a "new order of the ages". And our fiat currency still contains that motto from the Great Seal of the United States. The Founders were very much men of the Enlightenment and very much Englishmen.
But they never applied that radical thinking to their own states. --- They created the U.S. Constitution -- a radical document that defined and limited the newly formed federal government only. It would have been very easy to extend the federal Bill of Rights to the states when it was written. The Founders chose not to. ---- misterwhite It mystifying why misterwhite insists that the Constitution only applied to the feds, -- when the supremacy clause clearly says the opposite. The only reason that makes any bit of logical sense, -- is that white/paulsen WANTS States to have the power to legislate morality, -- to be able to infringe upon our basic rights to guns, booze, etc... Not that such a power is truly logical, -- it's a socialistic dream.. Comments?
Or that the courts should not apply the Bill of Rights to foreigners. We hear that a good bit. I personally don't like it but either we "are endowed by their [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights" or we aren't. And that applies to anyone on U.S. soil.
Yes this is what prompted my response.
Yes this is what prompted my response. --- A K A Stone And your comment? -- Do you agree with misterwhite?
Yes for the tenth time I want the state to have the power to make murder illegal because it is immoral. Why don't you get it? Sure the government shouldn't be able to tell you to go to church or anything like that. But they do legislate morality and they should.
--- they do legislate morality and they should. --- A K A Stone You WANT States to have the power to legislate morality, -- to be able to infringe upon our basic rights. Sad comment, -- thanks for your admission.
It would be constitutional if an amendment was passed that required everyone to go to church. I don't support that but it would clearly be constitutional. Because there are zero limits on what kind of amendment can be adopted.
A K A Stone Then in your opinion an amendment to repeal the 2nd would be constitutional? Or do you claim that as a fact?
Or do you claim that as a fact? It is a fact. Every word of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and every decision issued by the Supremes can be amended by 37 states agreeing to do so. If you want to repeal the Second, bring back slavery, establish a communist regime or a Nazi government, outlaw white people, whatever, get your 37 states. And you don't need Congress either. If you're sure you have the 37 states, you can convene a constitutional convention just like the one that wrote and ratified our constitution originally.
If you want to repeal the Second, bring back slavery, establish a communist regime or a Nazi government, outlaw white people, whatever, get your 37 states. And you don't need Congress either. If you're sure you have the 37 states, you can convene a constitutional convention just like the one that wrote and ratified our constitution originally. If you can get a bunch of crazies to repeal the Second, bring back slavery, establish a communist regime or a Nazi government, outlaw white people, whatever, in 37 states, --- sure, they could claim they were amending our Constitution, --- but in reality they would be destroying the constitutional principles our republic is built on. Our Republic would cease to exist upon a 'ratification' of this type... The inalienable rights protected by our Constitution cannot be 'amended away...
It seems that way but I have been surprised over the years that the Left never tried to repeal the Second Amendment. You know how badly they want to.
I'd bet they realize that even a serious attempt to do so would start a guerilla style war, at least...
Or they're just waiting for a chance to hold a majority on the Court to revisit the Second Amendment and suddenly discover that it only applied to colonial militias after all. You know their line of argument on this; we've heard it often enough. After all, there was no rational or legal basis for Roe v. Wade or for sodomy marriage. That didn't stop the Court from imposing them as constitutional law. Say, this thread has been quite the success. I'm sure you're enjoying the topics raised.
After all, there was no rational or legal basis for Roe v. Wade or for sodomy marriage. That didn't stop the Court from imposing them as constitutional law. Say, this thread has been quite the success. I'm sure you're enjoying the topics raised. Right, but a Republican-controlled court gave us Roe, Casey, Kelo and sodomy marriage.
Why do you lie about faggot pretending to be married? I know because you are a Catholic and Catholics are largely leftists. The Republican appointees are the only ones who voted against it you fucking dumb ass Catholic false god worshipper. Every one of your fellow thief democrats voted for it. So get your head out of Hillary's ass. Everyone knows it was the heretic catholics who gave us faggot marriage. Just like all thos Catholic fag articles you ignored to cover for your faggot pedophile fake church cult.
Everyone knows that it was the Republicans who gave us abortion on demand. Everyone knows that it was the Republicans who gave us eminent domain for private actors. Everyone knows it was the Republicans who gave us sodomy marriage. Everyone knows this because the Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court continuously - with a few months break of a tie (in which nothing happened) - since 1969. You lie and twist and rage and scream to try to distract attention from the fact that YOU support all of this by continuing to support the Republican party. You are part of the problem. Instead, you attack God, the people of God, everything and everybody, like a petulant child having a tantrum. Look in the mirror: you are the problem. You are loyal to evil, and it is impossible to have any sort of reasonable conversation with you, because you're an abusive jerk. Therefore, the world YOU MADE by being a Republican and supporting them, galls you, but you're incapable of opening your eyes, and you are incapable of getting out of the box you've put yourself in, and you bite every hand offered to you in friendship or alliance, because we will not bend the knee in respect to your party, the Republican Party. It is evil, and you are evil for being part of it, and stupid for being unable to see what everybody knows. That's the truth.
#140. To: Vicomte13 (#139)
That is what you do when you talk about the Bible. You also do it with faggot prete d marriage when you lie and say the republicans gave it to us when they were the only ones who opposed. No protestants voted for gay marriage. How many fat loving Catholics did. I guess according to moron or liar Vic the way to change it would to appoint more democrats huh? No dumb ass liar you would have to appoint more Republicans. I'm ot saying all Republicans are good because they are not, many suck more then you do.
The pope isnt god. In fact if im allowed ill request that the heat from his lying body heats my room.
Im just being accurate. I know about half or ore of the elected Republicans suck. But you would pick a murdering thief for President over a born again Christian. Yes I'm saying what you said again. You prefer murderering thieves like axillary over christians like Ted Cruz. Oh did I mention you are a thief at heart also. Expecting people who work to give to idle hands. In total disrespect and disobedience to gods word. Did I also mention that I love you and wish the best for you, but sometimes you can be so stupid for someone as gifted as you are. I react this way to you out of frustration that you ignore truth, that you dont6 back pledge the evil in the Catholic church. No everything they do is not evil they do do some good also. But a few good works doesn't cut the muster.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestJonathan has worked in the hospitality industry and as assistant editor for the Humboldt Economic Index. His work has also been published on Patheos and Christianity Today.
#2. To: Tooconservative (#1)
The Founders were most certainly libertarians.
#10. To: A K A Stone (#2)
Libertarian means amoral.
#13. To: Hank Rearden (#10)
Libertarian means amoral.
Such an ignorant statement.
#14. To: misterwhite (#13)
#16. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite, Hank Rearden (#14)
(Edited)
Thank you misterwhite. They certainly are amoral.
USAGE
Immoral means ‘failing to adhere to moral standards.’ Amoral is a more neutral, impartial word meaning ‘without, or not concerned with, moral standards.’ An immoral person commits acts that violate society's moral norms. An amoral person has no understanding of these norms, or no sense of right and wrong. Amoral may also mean ‘not concerned with, or outside the scope of morality’ (following the pattern of apolitical, asexual). Amoral, then, may refer to a judicial ruling that is concerned only with narrow legal or financial issues. Whereas amoral may be simply descriptive, immoral is judgmental.
#17. To: Tooconservative (#16)
You keep saying 'amoral' when you seem to intend 'immoral'.
#19. To: misterwhite (#17)
Libertarians take no moral position on abortion, gambling, prostitution, porn, suicide, or age of consent. They simply say the government should not be involved in those areas.
#27. To: Tooconservative (#19)
"The libertarians are by no means a monolithic group."
#39. To: misterwhite (#27)
"The libertarians are by no means a monolithic group."
#51. To: Tooconservative (#39)
The Founders themselves were far from being a monolithic group.
#53. To: misterwhite (#51)
Why not "Conservatives With Exceptions"?
#54. To: Tooconservative (#53)
The conservatives of the era were all royalist Tories.
#55. To: misterwhite (#54)
(Edited)
Got it. The conservatives were a monolithic group. Probably the liberals, too.
#78. To: Tooconservative (#55)
I'll repeat my point: the Founders were far and away the most radical political thinkers of the entire Enlightenment era.
#83. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#78)
But they never applied that radical thinking to their own states.
They created the U.S. Constitution -- a radical document that defined and limited the newly formed federal government only. It would have been very easy to extend the federal Bill of Rights to the states when it was written. The Founders chose not to.
#96. To: Tooconservative, y'all, whitepaulsen (#83)
Tooconservative (#55) --- I'll repeat my point: the Founders were far and away the most radical political thinkers of the entire Enlightenment era.
#99. To: tpaine (#96)
It mystifying why misterwhite insists that the Constitution only applied to the feds, -- when the supremacy clause clearly says the opposite.
#103. To: Tooconservative (#99)
s that white/paulsen WANTS States to have the power to legislate morality, -- to be able to infringe upon our basic rights
#108. To: A K A Stone (#103)
-- white/paulsen WANTS States to have the power to legislate morality, -- to be able to infringe upon our basic rights.
#110. To: tpaine (#108)
And your comment? -- Do you agree with misterwhite?
#112. To: A K A Stone (#110)
(Edited)
white/paulsen WANTS States to have the power to legislate morality, -- to be able to infringe upon our basic rights. ----- And your comment? -- Do you agree with misterwhite?
#115. To: tpaine (#112)
#120. To: A K A Stone (#115)
--- there are zero limits on what kind of amendment can be adopted.
#122. To: tpaine, A K A Stone (#120)
Then in your opinion an amendment to repeal the 2nd would be constitutional?
#130. To: Tooconservative, y'all (#122)
(Edited)
It is a fact. Every word of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and every decision issued by the Supremes can be amended by 37 states agreeing to do so.
#132. To: tpaine (#130)
The inalienable rights protected by our Constitution cannot be 'amended away...
#133. To: Tooconservative (#132)
I have been surprised over the years that the Left never tried to repeal the Second Amendment.
#134. To: tpaine (#133)
I'd bet they realize that even a serious attempt to do so would start a guerilla style war, at least...
#136. To: Tooconservative (#134)
Or they're just waiting for a chance to hold a majority on the Court to revisit the Second Amendment and suddenly discover that it only applied to colonial militias after all. You know their line of argument on this; we've heard it often enough.
#138. To: Vicomte13 (#136)
#139. To: A K A Stone (#138)
Everyone knows it was the heretic catholics who gave us faggot marriage. J
Replies to Comment # 139. You lie and twist
#141. To: Vicomte13 (#139)
you attack God, the people of God,
#142. To: Vicomte13 (#139)
Therefore, the world YOU MADE by being a Republican and supporting them, galls you, but you're incapable of opening your eyes, and you
End Trace Mode for Comment # 139.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]