printIs there a name for the error of viewing history through the prism of contemporary moral standards (or sub-standards)? I had hoped that John Stossel would prod his guest, the progressive historian Thaddeus Russell, with his Socratic method of questioning, to tell us why it is that he, Russell, conflates libertinisim with liberty.
Russel’s banal history-from-below has it that we owe our freedoms less to the Founders’ political philosophy, than to the “saloons and speakeasies, brothels and gambling halls, to antiheroes such as drunken workers who created the weekend; prostitutes who set the precedent for women’s liberation, madams who owned land and used guns, and provided cutting-edge of fashion, … criminals who pioneered racial integration, unassimilated immigrants who gave us birth control, and brazen homosexuals who broke open America’s sexual culture.” (HERE.)
Yes, to listen to this progressive historian, the unions, and not the Hebrews, “created” the Sabbath. Actually, the Founders had quite the affinity for the Hebrew Bible—some of them even spoke Hebrew. (Horrors, that would have required a lot of that Puritanical mindset and discipline Russell bashed as regressive on the Stossel segment—as Hebrew is HARD.) They would not have needed “drunken workers” to teach them about the spiritual and ethical significance of some sort of Sabbath.
Walter Block makes clear in “Libertarianism And Libertinism,” that “as a political philosophy, libertarianism says nothing about culture, mores, morality, or ethics. To repeat: It asks only one question, and gives only one answer. It asks, ‘Does the act necessarily involve initiatory invasive violence?’ Libertarianism doesn’t have a position toward “pimping, prostituting, drugging, and other such degenerate behavior,” writes Block.
What then is the precise relationship between the libertarian, qua libertarian, and the libertine? It is simply this. The libertarian is someone who thinks that the libertine should not be incarcerated. He may bitterly oppose libertinism, he can speak out against it, he can organize boycotts to reduce the incidence of such acts. There is only one thing he cannot do, and still remain a libertarian: He cannot advocate, or participate in, the use of force against these people. Why? Because whatever one thinks of their actions, they do not initiate physical force.
Walter attests that he came to regret his earlier “enthusiasm about the virtues of these callings.” “Marriage, children, the passage of two decades, and not a little reflection,” he writes endearingly, “have dramatically changed my views on some of the troublesome issues addressed in this book. My present view with regard to ‘social and sexual perversions’ is that while none should be prohibited by law, I counsel strongly against engaging in any of them.”
Myself, I’m not so much a social conservative as my friend Prof. Block is. Rather, I believe in the paramountcy of privacy. If “civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy,” in Rand’s magnificent words, then sexual exhibitionism – homosexual or heterosexual – is anathema. The heroic and creative inner struggle is what brings out the best in man. My heroes are in the Greek tradition: Silent, stoic, principled yet private. Which means the Founders, and not Russell’s philanderers.
On the Fox Business website, Stossel promised that Russell would tell him “why his beloved founders actually wanted to keep the people docile and timid,” and why “Americans owe really overdue thanks to the libertines – the prostitutes, drunkards, and musicians.” Russel failed to deliver.
It is hardly surprising, or cutting edge history, as Russell would have you believe, that the American Founding Fathers did not favor prostitution, homosexuality, and infidelity. But it is worse than stupid for this progressive historian to cast these men, with their traditional mores, as enemies of progress. It demonstrates why we are losing liberty: Most people don’t even know to what they owe the peace, plenty and prosperity this country was blessed with and now risks losing.
UPDATE (MARCH 12): Robert Glisson, as penance for wasting your money on this progressive’s piss-poor output, you will have to buy a few copies of my new book for handing out (it’s due out on May 10).
Sigh, I wish I could have wrapped my puny intellect around some of these concepts earlier in life. It wasn’t to be.
There is a man that I admire, from your neck of the woods, Rabbi Daniel Lapin. He has helped me understand my faith from the Hebrew perspective.
That being said, in my personal life, anything goes has gone out the door, so to speak.
I ordered the book before this article was posted; however, I would have bought it anyway; because, I think that one should have a grasp on what a society is or was like at the time when its government was being founded. The modern perspective of our founding is- well dressed men in comfortable meeting halls, richly discoursing high ideas. In Russell’s book, the founding fathers stood above the ‘whorehouse and bar on every corner,’ society; decried it and still demanded ‘Liberty’ for the libertines they denounced. We know from that, they truly believed in ‘Liberty.’ If they didn’t, they would have used libertine society as a reason to develop a different form of government. As you quoted Stossel- [“why his beloved founders actually wanted to keep the people docile and timid,” and why “Americans owe really overdue thanks to the libertines – the prostitutes, drunkards, and musicians.” Russell failed to deliver.] I agree, all he can do is show us how people lived at a time in history. All governments are still founded by well dressed men and women in comfortable meeting halls.
As always, Ilana Mercer gives you the TRUTH as no one else can. To my HERO Ilana Mercer, I will ask everyone of my friends, foes and editors of sites I read to take the time to read this lady’s articles and (Barley A Blog) to enlighten and educate them with her insightful wisdom.
What can you expect when the schools, from K to post-doctorate impress subjectivity, cynicism, and hedonism as the raison d’etre? Unfortunately, this is the social conditioning formula that’s been dominating for two generations and beginning a third. It is the philosophy of the parents handed down to the child.
At the end great depression, there began a period of abundant wealth and indulgence. Once that era closes, something that appears to be underway, the attitudes likely will return to conservation and responsibility. Human behavior should adjust to benefit best from the prevailing conditions. Hang in; it was fun!
Madison: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
While I am not an anarchist, I could see “no government” working in a tight community of 20,000 Mormons, Hassidim, or Amish where charity would be voluntarily taking care of the disabled and the few miscreants would be handled by Judges/Elders based on the Mormon/Torah/Mennonite Laws. This is Thaddeus Russell HELL.
At the other end of the “common morality” scale are America’s ghettos/barrios where the population is controlled by Bloods, Crips, Welfare-State bureaucrats, and Swat Team Police. Gangstaland is Thaddeus Russell HEAVEN.
So are people freer in a Singapore where property rights are respected and murderers are jailed BUT where one gets arrested for spitting on the sidewalk – OR in South Africa where mayhem and a corrupt ANC thugocracy reigns? Liberty works when people can POLICE THEMSELVES – hence some common morality is essential to libertarianism. There will not be a libertarian state established in a prison or loony bin.
This is why I, an atheist scientist, gave his Chinese-born daughter a Jewish education!
Ben Franklin’s farts were smarter than Thaddeus Russell!
“Robert Glisson, as penance for wasting your money on this progressive’s piss-poor output, you will have to buy a few copies of my new book for handing out (it’s due out on May 10).” Umm- compromise. I bought it used for half price, therefore neither he or anyone else get a commission off it. I will buy one of yours at the full new price in May. Will not insist on autograph; fair?
[You betcha.]
I see the concepts discussed here starting to infiltrate from the local level to The District of Confusion , where as a Rookie Senator Rand Paul is having as big and impact as I have seen in shifting the debate towards Freedom !
I’m glad to hear Prof. Block has outgrown his previous enthusiasm. I’ve unfortunately met a fair number of libertarians over the past 30 years who were attracted to the philosophy because they felt it justified their personal kinks, or their bad manners.
They all seemed to make the unjustifiable leap from “It is my right to do this,” to “It is right to do this.”
BTW, the most elegant formulation of the libertarian principle I’ve come across is from G.K. Chesterton:
“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.”