a "reflection" published May 1992
I do not expect profundity from politicians. For good and ill, we do not live in a time of philosopher-kings. But this year, with both Jerry Brown and Pat Buchanan on the campaign trail, I had thought that I might at least witness a clash of the Weltanschauungen. Much to my surprise, the first philosophically objectionable statement I heard uttered by a presidential candidate this year came not from either of these gentlemen, but from the Libertarian.
Libertarianism holds that people are basically good, and if left to themselves, will do what is right,
said Andre Marrou. Although I consider myself a libertarian, I believe this notion to be hogwash. I have another view of human nature, and see the responsibility required by equal freedom as a means of restraining people, people who, as often as not, will stick it to their fellows if they can. I am for limited government in large part because people are too dangerous to be trusted with extensive government.
But the most striking thing about Marrou's statement is not that a libertarian might believe it (in my experience, libertarians are as capable as anyone of holding nut-ball notions) but that a Libertarian presidential candidate would say it. Libertarianism is a political doctrine, and admits many foundations. Just as a Libertarian Hindu would not (I hope) publicly declare the basis of libertarianism to be contained in the concept karma, or a Libertarian Christian link freedom to some arcane interpretation of soteriology, so too should a Libertarian atheist keep his humanistic optimism to himself. Precisely what libertarianism is is controversial enough; muddying it up with non-libertarian positions in public should be anathema.
Of course, Marrou's homespun philosophy is also impolitic.
There are three basic positions on the nature of human goodness: people are basically good (but corrupted by bad institutions
), basically evil (but capable, perhaps, of redemption and control), or a mixture of both good and bad. Most people who have given this matter any thought hold to some version of the last position. It is, after all, only common sense. A very small number holds to a variant of the second position. But both of these groups look upon believers of the first position as unrealistic utopians, nuts to be indulged and perhaps watched with wary eye. There is no good reason for a Libertarian politician to propound a non-libertarian point of philosophy that most people look upon as silly and possibly dangerous. It is not only bad philosophy, it is bad marketing.
Liberty, Vol. 5, No. 5
 |
Click here for this site's general fair-use permissions statement. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|