The Triumph of Cafeteria Libertarianism?
Over at RI Future, diarist PDM has posted a video that, I think, is intended to shock Americans into realizing what their country is becoming, or something like that.
Here’s what I don’t understand. PDM, I believe, is a Ron Paul supporter. If a similar incident happened in say Sudan or Zimbabwe or Iran, but instead of being escorted away, the protester was shot between the eyes, the response we saw from Ron Paul of the Republican Presidential debates would basically be to say “none of our business”; “someone might not like it if we try to help change the system that allows that, so we should do nothing”.
So, if Ron Paul and his supporters don’t believe that we should care enough to act when other human beings are treated cruelly at the hands of a foreign dictators, on what grounds do they expect anyone to care enough to act about much milder treatment of citizens by a government, for example when a lady is escorted away from a political event for what appears to be a legitimate, peaceful expression of her First Amendment rights?
Andrew, really. Ron Paul supporters would argue the Constitution guarantees the free speech of American citizens, it makes no provisions for laws or cultures of foreign lands – no matter how cruel your analogous example may be.
JP,
Please trust that I’m interested in good-faith engagement here. I understand the argument you are making, I believe that in certain degrees it is at least defensible (for example, George Kennan would have been likely to make the same argument towards the end of his career) but ultimately that argument rests on the idea that it is government that ultimately sets the extent of your rights. If the government you’re born into says you have free speech, then you have free speech. If not then you don’t.
That is NOT a libertarian idea.
Bush = Greatest President EVER
McCain = Bush
That’s a good thing
So why did McCain’s thugs throw the old
lady out?
Not to worry. The U.S. electorate is set to throw McCain out.
OldTimeLefty
Am I guilty of blurring the line between Constitutionalist and libertarian philosophy…or are you confusing the latter with Anarchism?
Either way, it’s one more reason to not vote for McCain.
JP,
It’s an active debate in libertarian circles about the overlap between consitutionalism and libertarianism, correct? For example, you can be a democratic socialist and a constitutionalist just as easily as you can be a libertarian and a constitutionalist.
The problem is that a constitutional view without any appeal to some kind of higher principle ends up being that your rights are what the collective who wrote and approved the constitution says they are, and no more.
If you accept a the view that constitutionalism view is valid only insofar as a constitution properly reflects some higher principles, the next question becomes whether those higher principles apply universally, or only to certain people, i.e. members lucky enough to be members of your “tribe”.
Ultimately — and taking us back to the subject of the original post — you can’t avoid running into the question of why should I care about someone 1,000s of miles away from me in say Montana or California any more or less than someone 1,000s of miles away from me in Europe or Africa. Is it only because one is a member of my tribe, and one isn’t? For those inside of the tribe everything, for those outside of the tribe nothing? That philosophy can take you to some pretty nutters places…
“Ultimately — and taking us back to the subject of the original post — you can’t avoid running into the question of why should I care about someone 1,000s of miles away from me in say Montana or California any more or less than someone 1,000s of miles away from me in Europe or Africa. Is it only because one is a member of my tribe, and one isn’t? For those inside of the tribe everything, for those outside of the tribe nothing?”
So … the American Constitution applies to all 6.8b people on the planet, including unaffiliated enemy combatants captured on the field of battle? (This is not a sarcastic question.)
Is this a good place to distinguish between universal principles/human rights and the sovereign subdivisions of countries (while acknowledging that the governing structures of certain countries enable gross abuses of those universal principles)? Certainly the American Constitution was inspired and preceded by higher principles. And certainly the principles of the American Constitution (if certain members of the Supreme Court would quit rewriting it – Kelo vs New London) are or should be universal.
But does saying that create an obligation to bring the American Constitution to “someone thousands of miles away in Europe or Africa”? Part of me would love you to say yes. And another part of me is concerned as to the price (not monetarily) that would have to be paid to accomplish that.