Embarrassed to be a libertarian
Over at the econoblog Division of Labour Tim Shaughnessy has a post about “why libertarians don’t gain much ground”. His basic thesis is that libertarians are intolerant atheists. His post is centered around a post by Nicholas Provenzo of The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism’s blog Rule of Reason. Provenzo’s post has caused quite a stir in intarweb circles. Here is the central idea behind the post:
Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin’s decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.
On the surface this seems like inflammatory and perhaps harsh, but I’m not sure myself. One blogger called it “pretty vile stuff” another blogger called him an asshole, repeatedly. The hate mail he received and subsequently posted has even more interesting responses: he’s a Nazi; kill yourself; you should have been aborted, etc.
Most of the backlash comes from the second sentence of the paragraph quoted above: “it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome”. If one looks at this quickly, as many seem to have done, it might appear that he is saying that all Down syndrome babies should be aborted. However, I think people might be misunderstanding the word “morality”. Rather than saying that it is only moral to abort, I believe he is saying that if one chooses so, it is moral to abort, as it is in any situation. Now obviously from the remainder of Provenzo’s post it is clear that be believes the better choice is to abort the child, but I don’t believe he is saying all should. It truly is a matter of choice, but Provenzo is attempting to argue for what he believes is the more moral choice.
Of course this is where the debate really takes off. As callous as it might seem, I think Provenzo’s moral preference has the better argument. While I would never attempt to undermine the individual choice of any woman, I think there is a good argument to be made for abortion in the case of severe disabilities in fetuses. I am uncertain of what moral good comes from bringing a child into the world where they will have no quality of life. Indeed, I think Provenzo might be right when he alludes to the fact that bringing a severely disable child into the world might ultimately be selfish and cruel.
I also cannot agree whatsoever with the standard pro-life/Christian response which attempts to say that bringing such life into the world is a beautiful act. To say that the mentally handicapped are “ambassadors of God” is profoundly misguided. To say that they are “ambassadors of God” is to show how evil the god of Christianity must be. If god would allow a such a hardship upon a innocent child just to show god’s supposed love then god is undeserving of any reverence. Likewise as the National Review article shows, Christians appear to use the disabled as pawns in a disgusting game of self-satisfaction. Take these for example (emphasis added):
- “Their presence, in short, elevates all of us.”
- “It wasn’t until my brother John lost his battle with cancer ten years ago that I truly appreciated how much he influenced those around him.”
- “He made us better people”
In each instance Franc shows that the disabled’s presence is designed to improve our lives. I don’t doubt the genuine love and care that was provided, but it seems that there is little concern for the life of the disabled person. If one person’s life is based around the self-satisfaction that another might get out of it, it seems a little troubling to me. If the primary purpose of disabled individuals is to demonstrate god or teach the rest of humanity a lesson and the comfort and happiness is in the background there is a huge problem with priorities.
All that said, I think I agree generally with Provenzo’s point, however, I think he was unnecessarily terse and probably could have crafted his post more carefully as to better deflect the criticism—though in such debates civility, especially on the anti-abortion side, is generally lacking and based primarily on guttural instinct. I also must point out that I, like most people, don’t like abortion, and wish it were unnecessary, however I believe that it is a fundamental freedom that women (and to a small extent, couples) should always have.
As for Shaughnessy’s response, I don’t much understand it. I don’t know any libertarian who is as openly hostile to religion as he claims. Reason magazine, though cosmopolitan and generally irreligious, isn’t as hostile has he states. There is nothing inherently incompatible about religion and libertarianism. It is only incompatible when religion is applied in as though it were a strict guide for political philosophy. Indeed, I think there is a strong case to me made for Jesus being a libertarian in a basic sense, though this supposes a strong Arminian view of theology. That said, religion, and Christianity specifically, are huge obstacles to a more free society. Looking at abortion, same-sex marriage and other dictated morals one can see how Christianity is, or at least has been portrayed as, the antithesis of libertarianism. The reason that many libertarians are atheists is because libertarianism puts a huge emphasis on human reason, while religion attempts to directly undermine the abilities of humanity.
More specifically, I don’t know how Shaughnessy can think that his argument for a libertarian stance on abortion has much merit. Invoking the non-aggression axiom in the case of a zygote is patently absurd. He states that he doesn’t “see how, after the two haploids become a diploid, this being is anything but human, and thus deserving of the rights any other human has.” I’m sorry, but I honestly don’t understand how one can think that a microscopic ball of cells can logically have the same rights as a rational human being. (I’ll admit this does provide a problem in respect to babies which are not “rational”, however, I think that the birthing process IS important in this respect.) If all things that are potential human beings—a zygote—are worthy of protection, shouldn’t we also include the sperm and egg within the realm of protection?
I don’t know if calling an abortion moral is necessary, but surely forcing a woman to carry to term an unwanted child is immoral. The abortion itself might not be moral (depending on one’s definition of morality) but having the choice to do so certainly is moral and any prevention of this choice is rightfully condemned.
Now I’ll agree with Shaughnessy that Provenzo’s post might not convince “an ideological fence-sitter”, but I don’t think that such fence-sitters really exist. However, in my former life as a fundamentalist Christian I completely rejected abortion and now such posts appeal to me, at least in an intellectually stimulating way. So perhaps posts will help abortion foes to at least reexamine the basis of their beliefs.
I think the strange comment about potheads is also revealing. First off, what’s wrong with potheads wanting to get their drugs cheaper? Additionally, how is calling one’s self a libertarian going to reduce the cost of marijuana? If potheads want to get cheaper drugs they’d be better off attempting to influence members of the Democratic Party. Putting a Bob Barr sign on your lawn isn’t going to accomplish anything. So when Shaughnessy can point out potheads who are calling themselves libertarians for this sole reason, I’d like to see it. Until then, he should work on stopping sounding like a moralist.
The ultimate point of this post seems to be that until the Randians stop insulting is religious faith he will “continue to be slightly embarrassed [sic] to admit my libertarian leanings.” First off, I think “leanings” is accurate since, from at least what he presents in this post, he seems more like a market-oriented conservative, rather than a libertarian. (But I’d have to see his position on same-sex marriage and other cultural issues to make a better judgment of his ‘libertarian purity’.) Secondly, I think it’s odd to be embarrassed to call yourself libertarian because some elements within the ‘movement’ disagree with you. Using this logic he should be embarrassed to call himself a member of Louisiana State University-Shreveport since presumably there are some ultra-leftists on campus or perhaps he should embarrassed to be an American since there undoubtedly some douche bags to be found within the population.