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: 5980
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
Comments (1-96) not displayed.
.
.
.
#97. To: tpaine (#96)
You're a dumb ass. Do you want murder to be legal?
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? tpaine posted on 2018-01-27 12:04:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Edit #97. To: tpaine (#96) You're a dumb ass. Do you want murder to be legal? Can anyone here explain why A K A Stone could conceivably imagine that his remark above has any relationship to my post preceding?
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.
Perhaps because of your constant claim that "the power to legislate morality" isn't so (at least in the context of American Law.) AND because murder is a matter of morality made illegal through Constiutional Law, the Bill of Rights, and/or legislation. Otherwise, yes, there ARE many who would indeed murder as a matter of "TCOB."
He's trying to revisit the points he was making yesterday. The thread has grown a lot and wandered a bit since then.
Can anyone here explain why A K A Stone could conceivably imagine that his remark above has any relationship to my post preceding? Answer the question I posed, Then you will receive your answer.
Yes this is what prompted my response.
Murder is wrong regardless of any government decree or legislation. Even someone who is an atheist knows that it's wrong. Yet the government allows murder in certain situations - such as abortion. That's because libtards have legally defined (via court case law) that life isn't life until It reaches a certain age or development... JUST LIKE YOU DO WITH CALLING ADDICTION A DISEASE. You libtards get your way by calling unborn babies, non life, illegals undocumented and injecting heroin in your arm a disease. Are you getting it yet, closet libtard? Yellow or fake news and propaganda is why WE ARE MOVING LEFT. You are part of the problem. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Or allow 0bama to send his robot drones to bomb civilian weddings if they thought there was a chance a terror suspect might be there. And then circle back around to bomb it again when locals came to help the victims. For that matter, in wars like Iraq where we have invaded a country for no good reason, we kill anyone who opposes us. Yet we have not declared a war and can provide no casus belli that we would recognize if some other country did the same thing to us. And the Founders did warn us against such wars, as well as presidents like Ike who warned of the military-industrial complex. And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.... [America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice. That darned John Q. Adams sounds kind of like a ... libertarian. Needless to say, quoting Adams infuriates the neocon element.
Answer the question I posed, Then you will receive your answer. No, murder should not be legal, because everyone has a right to life. Our right to life is not a question of morality or religious beliefs.. Can anyone here explain why A K A Stone could conceivably imagine that his remark above has any relationship to my post preceding? (By the way, an extended answer is at; --- https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=54377 --- )
Yes this is what prompted my response. --- A K A Stone And your comment? -- Do you agree with misterwhite?
Our right to life is not a question of morality or religious beliefs.. Can anyone here explain why A K A Stone could conceivably imagine that his remark above has any relationship to my post preceding? Yes you are correct. It would be immoral. So obviously should be and is illegal.
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.
Our right to life (thus laws against murder) are not a question of morality or religious beliefs..
--- 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.
Someone who has their head up their asshole (that would be you) their opinion is just a fart and they don't matter.
Yes I want them to be able to make murder illegal. But people with their heads up their asshole have a different view. They want every immoral act to be unconstitutional. So they distort and lie to try to make imaginary points.
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.
Your opinion that you WANT States to have the power to legislate morality, --- matters.. Luckily not many agree with misterwhite or you...
You have no say they will do what they do. If your cult ran things murder and rape would be legal. Because in your imaginary constitution there is an imaginary about laws being moral would be illegal.
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 That one is worth bookmarking. Thanks.
--- 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?
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? Unfortunately it would pass constitutional muster. Is your position that repealing prohibition was unconstitutional? Anything can be changed via the amendment process. Maybe I'm mistaken. Can you quote from the constitution where repealing amendments is not allowed?
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.
You're welcome. Can you explain what types of amendments to the constitution are not allowed and source it? The constitution is not a perfect document. Unlike the holy Bible.
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. Tooconservative Now you are going to be accused of hating the second amendment. Neither you or I support that but recognize the fact that by amendment they can do whatever they damn well please and it would be constitutional. Now if they had some kind of clause in their that all amendments and laws had to be MORAL then we could have a fighting chance as if it was immoral to disarm the citizenry.
You're debating with a nitwit. A self proclaimed constitutional scholar... and the most constitutionally protected person he knows. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I thought he relied on the text of the document. I was mistaken. He shows faux support for the constitution.
Only by idiots. The Constitution provides for amendment for any and all purposes. No section of it is declared off-limits to being amended. 37 states. All you need.
It's fun to recall how we got the last amendment to the Constitution. It had been entirely forgotten by everyone, being two hundred years old. A student wrote a paper about it, got a bad grade, made it his job to get the states to ratify it, and finally succeeded. It was submitted by Congress to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, along with eleven other proposed amendments. While ten of these twelve proposals were ratified in 1791 to become the Bill of Rights, what would become the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the proposed Congressional Apportionment Amendment did not get ratified by enough states for them to also come into force with the first ten amendments. The proposed congressional pay amendment was largely forgotten until 1982 when Gregory Watson researched it as a student at the University of Texas at Austin and began a new campaign for its ratification. Watson's role has been widely popularized, since his original paper proposing the idea received a poor grade (although a current Professor at Texas, Zachary Elkins, engineered a grade change in 2017 in light of Watson's accomplishments). The amendment eventually became part of the United States Constitution on May 5, 1992, completing a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days. Apparently, he took that bad grade personally. His "campaign" to get it ratified mostly consisted of writing letters to state legislators around the country. But where else in the world could an unconnected nobody get a constitutional amendment ratified? Nowhere. It's a great little story. The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution
Most immigration is from Latin America, and they do share Judaea-Christian ethic.
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...
Only when someone argues that the principles of the Constitution can be ignored, do I plead for and rely upon common sense. 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.
They don't do it for the same reason that the Right doesn't amend the Constitution to outlaw abortion: they don't have the votes, and they know it.
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.
Comments (137 - 148) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#98. To: A K A Stone, yall (#97)
It's mystifying why misterwhite insists that the Constitution only applied to the feds, -- when the supremacy clause clearly says the opposite.
#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.
#100. To: tpaine, A K A Stone (#98)
Can anyone here explain why A K A Stone could conceivably imagine that his remark above has any relationship to my post preceding?
#101. To: tpaine (#98)
Can anyone here explain why A K A Stone could conceivably imagine that his remark above has any relationship to my post preceding?
#102. To: tpaine (#98)
You're a dumb ass. Do you want murder to be legal?
#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
#104. To: Liberator, tpaine, A K A Stone (#100)
...murder is a matter of morality made illegal through Constiutional Law, the Bill of Rights, and/or legislation.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#105. To: Deckard (#104)
Yet the government allows murder in certain situations - such as abortion.
#106. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, tpaine, Liberator, Vicomte13 (#104)
(Edited)
Yet the government allows murder in certain situations - such as abortion.
Warning Against the Search for "Monsters to Destroy," 1821
John Quincy Adams
#107. To: A K A Stone, yall (#102)
Do you want murder to be legal?
#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.
#109. To: tpaine (#107)
No, murder should not be legal, because everyone has a right to life.
#110. To: tpaine (#108)
And your comment? -- Do you agree with misterwhite?
#111. To: A K A Stone (#109)
It would be immoral.
#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?
#113. To: tpaine (#111)
#114. To: tpaine (#112)
(Edited)
You WANTS States to have the power to legislate morality, - - to be able to infringe upon our basic rights.
#115. To: tpaine (#112)
#116. To: A K A Stone, yall (#113)
#117. To: tpaine (#116)
#118. To: A K A Stone, yall, (#115)
It would be constitutional if an amendment was passed that required everyone to go to church.
#119. To: All (#118)
#120. To: A K A Stone (#115)
--- there are zero limits on what kind of amendment can be adopted.
#121. To: tpaine (#119)
Then in your opinion an amendment to repeal the 2nd would be constitutional?
#122. To: tpaine, A K A Stone (#120)
Then in your opinion an amendment to repeal the 2nd would be constitutional?
#123. To: tpaine (#118)
#124. To: Tooconservative (#122)
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.
#125. To: A K A Stone (#123)
The constitution is not a perfect document. Unlike the holy Bible.
#126. To: GrandIsland (#125)
#127. To: A K A Stone (#124)
Now you are going to be accused of hating the second amendment.
#128. To: A K A Stone, tpaine (#126)
(Edited)
The Twenty-seventh Amendment (Amendment XXVII) to the United States Constitution prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives. It is the most recent amendment to be adopted, but one of the first proposed. No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
#129. To: Liberator (#80)
#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.
#131. To: A K A Stone (#126)
I thought he relied on the text of the document.
#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...
#135. To: Tooconservative (#132)
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.
#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.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]