Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Russell Kirk's Essay on Libertarians

  1. #1

    Russell Kirk's Essay on Libertarians

    The term "libertarianism"is distasteful to people who think seriously about politics. Both Dr. F.A. Hayek and your servant have gone out of their way, from time to time, to declare that they refuse to be tagged with this label. Anyone much influenced by t h e thought of Edmund Burke and of Alexis de Tocqueville - as are both Professor Hayek and this commentator - sets his face against ideology; and libertarianism is a simplistic ideology, relished by one variety of the folk whom Jacob Burckhardt called "the terrible simplifiers."
    Nevertheless, I have something to say favorable to today's libertarians in the United States; later I shall dwell upon their vices. With your indulgence, I mean to make three points about persons calling themselves libertarians, whic h may warm the cockles of their rebellious hearts.
    First, a number of the men and women who accept the label "libertarian!' are not actually ideological libertarians at all, but simply conservatives under another name. These are people who perceive in the growth of the monolithic state, especially during the past half century, a grim menace to ordered liberty; and of course they are quite right. They wish to emphasize their attachment to personal and civic freedom by employing this 20th century word deriv ed from liberty. With them I have little quarrel - except that by so denominating themselves, they seem to countenance a crowd of political fantastics who "license they mean, when they cry liberty."
    Descendants of Classical Liberals. For if a man believes in an enduring moral order, the Constitution of the United States, established American way of life, and a free economy - why, actually he is a conservative, even if he labors under an imperfect understanding of the general terms of politics. Such America n s are to the conservative movement in the United States much as the Liberal Unionists have been to the Conservative Party in Britain - that is, close practical allies, almost indistinguishable nowadays. Libertarians of this description usually are intelle ctual descendants of the old "classical liberals"; they make common cause with regular conservatives against the menace of democratic despotism and economic collectivism.
    Second, the libertarians generally - both the folk of whom I have just approved, and also the ideological libertarians - try to exert some check upon vainglorious foreign policy. They do not believe that the United States should station garrisons throughout the world; no more do 1; in some respects, the more moderate among them have the u nderstanding of foreign policy that the elder Robert Taft represented. Others among them, however, seem to labor under the illusion that communist ideology can be dissipated by trade agreements - a notion really fatuous. I lack time to la bor this point here; I mean to take it up again in my autumn lecture on the neoconservatives, who in foreign policy tend toward an opposite extreme. Let it suffice for the present for me to declare that so far as the libertarians set their faces against a policy of American domination worldwide - why, I am with them. I part with them when they forget that the American government nowadays, in Burke's phrase of two centuries ago, is "combating an armed doctrine," not merely a national adversary.
    Perils of Ce ntralization. Third, most of the libertarians believe in the humane scale: they vehemently oppose what my old friend Wilhelm Roepke called "the cult of the colossal." They take up the cause of the self-reliant individual, the voluntary association, the ju st rewards of personal achievement. They know the perils of political centralization. In an age when many folks are ready - nay, eager - to exchange their independence for "entitlements," the libertarians exhort us to stand on our own feet, manfully.
    In sh ort, the libertarians' propaganda, which abounds, does touch upon real social afflictions of our time, particularly repression of vigorous and aspiring natures by centralized political structures and by the enforcement of egalitarian doctrines. Rather cur i ously, libertarian publications have been widely circulated in Poland - apparently with no concerted effort by the communist government to prevent their introduction. (One may suspect, in this instance, that the eagerness of certain libertarian organizati o ns for cordial relations between the West and the Soviet Union induces some toleration by the squalid oligarchies of the East.) With reason, many people are discontented with the human condition, in many lands, near the end of the 20th century; the more i n telligent among the discontented look about for some seemingly logical alternative to present dominations and powers; and some of those discontented - the sort of people who went out to David in the Cave of Adullam - discover libertarian dogmata and becom e enthusiasts, at least temporarily, for the ideology called libertarianism. Inadequacies and Extravagances. I say temporarily: for an initial fondness for libertarian slogans frequently has led young men and women to the conservative camp. Not a few of th e people who have studied closely with me or who have become my assistants had been attracted, a few years earlier, to the arguments of Ayn Rand or of Murray Rothbard. But as they read more widely, they had become conscious of the inadequacies and extravag a nces of the various libertarian factions; as they had began to pay serious attention to our present political difficulties, they had seen how impractical are the libertarian proposals. Thus they had found their way to conservative realism, which proclaims that politics is the art of the possible. Therefore it may be said of libertarianism, in friendly fashion, that often it has been a recruiting office for young conservatives, even though the libertarians had not the least intention of shoring up belief in custom, convention, and the politics of prescription. There. I have endeavored to give the libertarians their due. Now let me turn to their failings, which are many and grave. For the ideological libertarians are not conservatives in any true meaning of t hat term of politics; nor do the more candid libertarians desire to be called conservatives. On the contrary, they are radical doctrinaires, contemptuous of our inheritance from our ancestors.


    Read the rest: http://www.heritage.org/research/lec...f-libertarians



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Some important points I might add:

    These two bodies of opinion share a detestation of collectivism. They set their faces against the totalist state and the heavy hand of bureaucracy. That much is obvious enough.What else do conservatives and libertarians profess in common? The answer to that question is simple: nothing. Nor will they ever. To talk of forming a league or coalition between these two is like advocating a union of ice and fire.





    In short, a primary function of government is restraint; and that is anathema to libertarians, although an article of faith to conservatives
    .

    But surely, surely I must be misrepresenting the breed? Don't I know self-proclaimed libertarians who are kindly old gentlemen, God-fearing, patriotic, chaste, well endowed with the goods of fortune? Yes, I do know such. They are the people who through misapprehension put up the cash for the fantastics. Such gentlemen call themselves “libertarians” merely because they believe in personal freedom, and do not understand to what extravagance they lend their names by subsidizing doctrinaire “libertarian” causes and publications. If a person describes himself as “libertarian” because he believes in an enduring moral order, the Constitution of the United States, free enterprise, and old American ways of life why, actually he is a conservative with imperfect understanding of the general terms of politics.




  4. #3
    Judging from what he says about the Soviet Union it's pretty obvious that this was written at least a quarter of a century ago. The stigmas associated with the label back then are not the same as the stigmas they're trying to tie to the word today.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  5. #4
    This is another example of why libertarians can't allow themselves to be defined by conservatives.
    Last edited by Ronin Truth; 03-27-2015 at 02:07 PM.

  6. #5
    Well. He is not wrong.

    Few people on this site are actually conversant with ideological libertarianism. They are here for Ron Paul's platform which is basically conservatism and severe rationalising of federal functions.
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't a thing
    Prostitution is legal
    We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  7. #6
    And Kirk can go $#@! himself. Libertarians are pissing on the legacy of guys like him. He is spinning in his grave.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    And Kirk can go $#@! himself. Libertarians are pissing on the legacy of guys like him. He is spinning in his grave.
    'Libertarians" are refusing to vote. And getting 1% in elections when not being Libertarian.

    How was Blocks speech received? Infanticide is okay? That is getting serious traction?

    Or are seriously toned down ideas like limited government getting traction?
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't a thing
    Prostitution is legal
    We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    'Libertarians" are refusing to vote. And getting 1% in elections when not being Libertarian.

    How was Blocks speech received? Infanticide is okay? That is getting serious traction?

    Or are seriously toned down ideas like limited government getting traction?
    What are you blabbing about? There are more libertarians than ever by a wide margin. Conservatism, as Kirk understood it, is in the $#@!house permanently. Kirk failed. His legacy has been desecrated. Hopefully he's looking up from hell foaming at the mouth in anger right now.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    And Kirk can go $#@! himself. Libertarians are pissing on the legacy of guys like him. He is spinning in his grave.
    Kirk will have the last laugh. That I can assure you. The core problem with libertarians is their smugness and refusal to understand human beings. It's like someone who comes across an abandoned 12 wheeler and foolishly thinks they can operate it immediately without the instruction manual. I'm sympathetic to most libertarian arguments, but some at the extreme ends just veer off into the ditch of nihilism.
    Last edited by AuH20; 03-30-2015 at 10:46 AM.

  12. #10
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    What are you blabbing about? There are more libertarians than ever by a wide margin. Conservatism, as Kirk understood it, is in the $#@!house permanently. Kirk failed. His legacy has been desecrated. Hopefully he's looking up from hell foaming at the mouth in anger right now.
    Does the current "conservative" landscape in any way reflect Kirk's philosophy?
    Let's go down the list.

    Humility? Nope.
    Respect for Nature? Not really.
    Prescription? Nope.
    A lust for knowledge? No sir.

    So I don't know why he would be angry when his principles have not been in operation. In fact, you could make the argument that the exact opposite has been in effect for quite some time.
    Last edited by AuH20; 03-30-2015 at 10:55 AM.

  13. #11
    The payoff here is that, following Kirk's terminology, Rand is a conservative, not a libertarian, while all the other Republican presidential candidates are liberals, and not conservatives.

    I see that as a plus for us rhetorically.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    Does the current "conservative" landscape in any way reflect Kirk's philosophy?
    Let's go down the list.

    Humility? Nope.
    Respect for Nature? Not really.
    Prescription? Nope.
    A lust for knowledge? No sir.

    So I don't know why he would be angry when his principles have not been in operation. In fact, you could make the argument that the exact opposite has been in effect for quite some time.
    No matter what excuses you want to make for the failure of this pontificating jerkoff, the fact of the matter remains that conservatism is a big fat pathetic disgrace. Kirk was a failure. His ideas were trash. They went up in smoke. And now libertarian activists get the opportunity to piss on his legacy. I couldn't be happier to do it.

  15. #13
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    No matter what excuses you want to make for the failure of this pontificating jerkoff, the fact of the matter remains that conservatism is a big fat pathetic disgrace. Kirk was a failure. His ideas were trash. They went up in smoke. And now libertarian activists get the opportunity to piss on his legacy. I couldn't be happier to do it.
    How can he be a failure if his ideas were never implemented? There has never been an administration or political party in recent history that I would consider to be Kirkean in nature. There are no major Kirkean conservative pundits, with the lone exception being Mike Church, who is not on the level of a Limbaugh or Hannity in terms of clout. I think that you enjoy conflating Kirk with the bellicose bozos that run the Republican Party when Kirk and his kind were completely exiled from the conservative moment in the early 1990s.
    Last edited by AuH20; 03-30-2015 at 11:17 AM.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    How can he be a failure if his ideas were never implemented? There has never been an administration or political party in recent history that I would consider to be Kirkean in nature. I think you just enjoy conflating Kirk and the bellicose bozos that run the Republican Party when Kirk and his kind were completely exiled from the conservative moment in the late 1980s.
    It's the movement that he was involved in crafting and fostering. You may want to create some revisionist history nonsense to protect this guy, but the fact remains: He was a failure. Just like Bill Buckley. Now they roll in their graves as libertarianism takes off. Any liberty activist should try to stick it to the Kirk's of the world every chance they get.

  17. #15
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    It's the movement that he was involved in crafting and fostering. You may want to create some revisionist history nonsense to protect this guy, but the fact remains: He was a failure. Just like Bill Buckley. Now they roll in their graves as libertarianism takes off. Any liberty activist should try to stick it to the Kirk's of the world every chance they get.
    Revisionist? Do you think we would be stuck in the Middle East if we had listened to Kirk? Would we have staggering deficits and near unconquerable federal programs if they had heeded his wisdom? Kirk was right and then some. And don't even bring up Buckley who was likely a plant of some type. In fact, he did everything in his power to limit criticism of Israel with his firing of Joseph Sobran from the National Review in 1993.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    Revisionist? Do you think we would be stuck in the Middle East if we had listened to Kirk? Would we have staggering deficits and near unconquerable federal programs if they had heeded his wisdom? Kirk was right and then some. And don't even bring up Buckley who was likely a plant of some type. In fact, he did everything in his power to limit criticism of Israel with his firing of Joseph Sobran from the National Review in 1993.
    Perhaps if Kirk hadn't run libertarians through the mud, his precious conservative movement wouldn't have gone so far downhill. Big mistake on his part, and the modern-day conservative movement is a testament to his bad strategy and failure. Now liberty activists get to return the favor.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    Perhaps if Kirk hadn't run libertarians through the mud, his precious conservative movement wouldn't have gone so far downhill. Big mistake on his part, and the modern-day conservative movement is a testament to his bad strategy and failure. Now liberty activists get to return the favor.
    I think Kirk took a caricature of the libertarian archetype and ran with it in that piece, based largely on juxtaposition. It's certainly not without flaws, though I do agree with some of his points.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    I think Kirk took a caricature of the libertarian archetype and ran with it in that piece, based largely on juxtaposition. It's certainly not without flaws, though I do agree with some of his points.
    Rothbard probably pissed Kirk off. Nevertheless, liberty activists must return the favor to these smug, arrogant, ivory-tower, elitist conservatives now that the roles are reversing. They aren't our friends, and never will be. Look at what they did to us when they were in power. Now it's payback time. Self-hating losertarians who look at propaganda written by their enemies and then judge themselves based off of it aren't doing the cause any favors.

  22. #19

  23. #20
    The critiques Kirk had of libertarianism being limited by relying on almost purely economic analysis of civilization were good. The critiques based on the foreign policy split during the Cold War were... less insightful, to say the least. Ayn Rand was a big Cold Warrior herself, so his criticisms of her likely had to do with her rejection of religion and "altruism" as opposed to anything else.
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.



Similar Threads

  1. Russell Kirk: Peacenik Prophet
    By William R in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-2016, 06:27 PM
  2. How Russell Kirk Changed His Mind on Immigration
    By AuH20 in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-14-2015, 09:12 AM
  3. Russell Kirk on Malcolm X
    By AuH20 in forum History
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-15-2015, 04:44 PM
  4. RUSSELL KIRK, RON PAUL AND 9/11 - by Jack Hunter
    By sailingaway in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-12-2011, 12:05 PM
  5. Video of Russell Kirk?
    By Knightskye in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-31-2011, 11:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •