108 votes

Earth to Rick Santorum: Libertarians Founded the United States

Andrew Napolitano recently showed a clip in which Rick Santorum explained his views on libertarianism. His comments are also instructive in understanding his animosity (politically) towards Ron Paul. Santorum said:

“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

As David Boaz pointed out in the interview with Napolitano, Santorum seems to oppose a basic American principle- the right to the pursuit of happiness. I agree with him on this, but there is something even more fundamental here than that. It has to do with the conservative philosophy itself. One of the statements that Santorum makes is true. "That is not how traditional conservatives view the world."

There is a great disconnect between average Americans who refer to themselves as "conservatives" and the small group of politicians and politically-connected businessman who likewise refer to themselves. The members of the former group believe in the founding principles of the United States, including the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They believe that these rights are endowed by their Creator. In other words, they preexist the government. They are not created by the government. It is the government's one and only job to protect those rights and when the government fails to protect them and instead violates them, it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish the government.

These inalienable rights are also referred to as "natural rights," meaning that man possesses them even in the state of nature (the state without government). For Jefferson, whose philosophy was inspired by Locke, the reason that men formed governments was to protect these rights better than they could be protected otherwise.

Locke viewed man in his natural state as capable of both good and evil. For Locke, man's natural state was a state of reason, which meant that he respected the rights of other men and observed the natural law of non-aggression. "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

For Locke and his philosophical heir Jefferson, this natural law of non-aggression was the basis of government power. By prohibiting aggression by one person or group against another, the government would preserve the natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Importantly, repelling aggression was also the limit of government power, for when the government exercised power for any other reason it was committing aggression itself and invading the rights it was meant to protect.

That this was Jefferson's guiding political principle is clear from his many statements to that effect. In his first inaugural, he argued for,

"...a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

In a letter to Francis Walker Gilmer in 1816, he wrote, “Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their powers; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”

Even on religious freedom, Jefferson based his position on the non-aggression principle. "“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

As you can see, the non-aggression principle defines liberty itself as Jefferson understood it. For him, as well as the likeminded libertarians that led the secession from Great Britain, the word "liberty" as used in the Declaration of Independence had a specific definition. It meant the right to do what one pleases as long as one does not invade the life, liberty, or property of another human being. In other words, each individual was beyond the reach of government power so long as he committed no aggression against anyone else.

These are not conservative ideas. They are libertarian ideas. While Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and the others who espoused this theory may not have called themselves by that name, the basic tenets of their philosophy were the same. Today, the non-aggression axiom remains the fundamental basis for libertarian theory. Ron Paul bases his positions on it, as he said (about the 3:30 mark) when running for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988.

Just as this non-aggression principle serves as the foundation and limit of government power between individuals within society, it is the foundation and limit of government power with respect to other nations. As all nations exist in a state of nature with each other, the natural law of non-aggression is the only one that governs them. As I've stated before, the non-aggression principle is the basis for the Declaration of War Power. The purpose of that power is for Congress to debate whether or not the nation in question has actually committed aggression against the United States. If it has, then a state of war exists and military action is justified. If it hasn't, there is no state of war, no declaration, and no military action is justified. The use of military force in the absence of a state of war (previous aggression by another nation) violates the natural law.

The conservative philosophy rejects all of these ideas. There were conservatives in the 18th century just as there are today and their philosophy hasn't fundamentally changed, either. The writer that most modern conservatives trace their philosophical ideas to was Edmund Burke. He has this to say about inalienable rights.

"Government is not made in virtue of natural rights, which may and do exist in total independence of it, and exist in much greater clearness and in a much greater degree of abstract perfection; but their abstract perfection is their practical defect. By having a right to everything they want everything. Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom. Among these wants is to be reckoned the want, out of civil society, of a sufficient restraint upon their passions. Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individuals, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can only be done by a power out of themselves, and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will and to those passions which it is its office to bridle and subdue. In this sense the restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights. But as the liberties and the restrictions vary with times and circumstances and admit to infinite modifications, they cannot be settled upon any abstract rule; and nothing is so foolish as to discuss them upon that principle."

While modern conservatives like Russell Kirk have pointed to Burke as their philosophical father, one can see clearly that Burke is here merely restating ideas from the true father of modern conservatism, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes asserted that in the state of nature man had "a right to everything," even a right to one another's bodies. Hobbes asserted, as Burke implies here, that man's passions would always overcome his reason and because of this the state of nature was a state of war of "everyone against everyone." For Hobbes, as for true conservatives today, man has to give up his natural rights upon entering society and accept those privileges to liberty and property that the government grants him.

For Hobbes, not only did man give up his natural rights upon entering society, but he also had to grant the "sovereign" absolute and undivided power. This was necessary in order to completely dominate man's natural impulses, which would always lead him to harm his neighbor if they were not checked. This power must literally keep each individual "in awe," so as to make him fearful of committing any unlawful act. To secure this absolute power, the sovereign needed control over the economy, which he consolidated through a privileged, wealthy elite. He also needed control over education and even the religious beliefs of the people. No individual could ever be allowed to follow the dictates of his own will, as it would inevitably lead him to harm his neighbor or the commonwealth in general.

On foreign policy, Hobbes also viewed all nations as existing in a state of nature. However, since he viewed the state of nature as equivalent to the state of war, he viewed all nations not under control of the sovereign as de facto enemies. In reading Leviathan, one can almost hear George W. Bush's famous remark, "You are either with us or with the terrorists." This is why conservatives support the deployment of troops all over the world. Like Hobbes, they believe that we are in constant danger from any nation that we are not completely dominating with the threat of force.

The reason that conservatism seeks to "conserve" the status quo is because its adherents do not believe that natural rights are inalienable. Upon entering society, man has to give up all of his natural rights, so the only rights that man has in society are those he has been given by government in the past. Thus, if you get rid of the past, you get rid of the rights. While the status quo might not be optimal, the conservative believes that to get rid of the status quo means returning to the awful state of nature, and necessitates reconstructing man's rights - via government - all over again. Conservatives are always fearful that rights can be lost and never regained - as opposed to libertarians who believe that rights are inalienable.

The conservative tradition in America does not trace back to Thomas Jefferson or the Declaration of Independence. Its tenets are completely incompatible with the basic libertarian philosophy that informed Jefferson and that document. The conservative tradition in America traces back to Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists, who were the conservatives of their day. Hamilton sought to preserve the status quo, which was a central government with absolute power, along with its mercantilist economic system. The only change he sought was that the system be run by Americans rather than the British.

Hamilton was a Hobbesian on every issue, which is why he clashed so stridently with Jefferson. Hamilton also believed that the power of the federal government had to be absolute. Otherwise, the separate states would be in the state of nature with each other and inevitably at war. He often spoke of the "want of power in Congress" leading to the states "being at each other's throats." Economically, he wanted a central bank, high protectionist tariffs to enrich domestic manufacturer's at taxpayer expense, and "internal improvements," which meant the government using taxpayer money to build what we would today call "infrastructure." While all of these policies were anti-free market, they served the agenda of securing the loyalty of a wealthy elite to the government. Hamilton went so far as to call the national debt “a national blessing” for the same reason. On foreign policy, Hamilton was an unqualified militarist who sought to lead an army in conquering an American empire, starting with the Western Hemisphere possessions of Spain.

He felt justified in all of these invasions of individual rights and violations of non-aggresion because he believed that what he called "national greatness" (today conservatives call it "American Exceptionalism") trumped the rights of individuals. For Hamilton, as for conservatives throughout human history, the individual lived to serve the commonwealth, as opposed to the libertarian belief that the commonwealth only existed to serve the individual.

This conservative tradition can be traced throughout American history from the Federalists to the Whigs to the Republican Pary. The Republican Party was born as the party of big government, centralized power, and a mercantilist economy. Ironically, all that history remembers of the Republican Party at its birth in the 1850's is its opposition to slavery - its one libertarian position - while ignoring its Hobbesian conservatism on all other matters. However, with slavery abolished, the Republican Party retained the rest of its philosophy through the next century and right up to the present day. One can hear it rehashed in any 2012 Republican presidential primary debate.

Today, conservative American voters wonder why the Republican politicians that they elect never seem to make the government smaller or less intrusive. They refer to elected Republicans who consistently grow the size and power of the government as "RHINOS" (Republicans In Name Only). They believe these politicians are not "true conservatives," because while they may belong to the Republican Party, they do not adhere to the principles of an underlying conservative philosophy that they imagine exists. They are wrong. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, George Bush, and the rest of the establishment Republicans are the true conservatives. The American voters identifying themselves as conservatives are really libertarians - they just don't know it yet.

Go to any Tea Party rally. This is where you will supposedly find "radical conservatives," but you won't find them carrying any signs quoting Alexander Hamilton. You won't find speakers extolling the virtues of government spending on infrastructure. Instead, you see signs quoting Thomas Jefferson and speakers mocking the many "bridges to nowhere" that have resulted from attempting to put Hamilton's conservative ideas into practice.

The one inconsistency is the Tea Party's support of the U.S. government's military empire. This false note in the otherwise libertarian movement is the result of cultural confusion. These conservatives don't yet realize that they aren't really conservatives. They are libertarians, and the warfare state does not jibe with the rest of the tenets of their philosophy. They support it because they have been told all of their lives that it is the conservative position, which it is. However, limited government, inalienable rights, free markets, and individual liberty are not.

Contrary to Rick Santorum's assertion that no society based upon radical individualism has ever succeeded, the libertarian, radical individualist principles upon which the United States was founded were precisely why it succeeded so spectacularly. It was libertarianism that made America different from any society before or since - what made it the "shining city on the hill" as Santorum calls it. It was the collectivist conservative philosophy that helped bring it down - with a lot of help from a third philosophical movement called Progressivism. Neither more conservatism nor more progressivism - nor any combination of the two - can solve the problems that America faces today. If Americans want to see liberty and prosperity restored in the United States, then restoring libertarianism is their only hope.

Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This is a fabulous post

going to pass this on.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/City_upon_a_Hill

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

Excellent: Must read

Everyone should self-educate, Rothbard: For New Liberty is a great start, Bastiat "The Law" is another amazing book, Ron Paul's one book that he thought everyone should read.

Then we should try to educate others, share with others our passion for learning about how to define and live in liberty.

Live free: free-hollywood.com

Brilliant as always! This

Brilliant as always!

This educating people as to what libertarianism is, is the most important thing we can do imo. I've had people tell me that libertarianism is a recent invention, a mix of liberalism and conservatism. I actually had a guy tell me that. There are some serious misunderstandings about libertarianism that desperately need to be cleared up and showing that the founding fathers were nothing like today's conservatives would go a long way towards winning them over to the ideals of liberty.

conservative vs liberal is an outdated dichotomy, the new paradigm is emerging as authoritarian vs libertarian.

LOVED IT! Thank you!

Here's a link to one of my fave John Locke/Hobbes videos - it's funny, but there's some cursing.

Three Minute Philosophy - John Locke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-buzVjYQvY

Great blog, Tom. Maybe we should send Santorum...

the DVD of "1776" (Director's Cut). The movie is wholesome, entertaining and historically accurate. Who knows, Santorum might actually learn something.

Tom, Always enjoy your submissions-However-

The Big Megaphones/Our opponents are always trying to slap the "L" label on Ron because they know it works against him with the electorate.

"RP not a republican, blah, blah..."

Don't think it is a good idea, during the campaign, to fight this particular battle.

On the contrary, we should keep hammering the truth-Ron represents the true, traditional Republican Party.

Ron always asserts this position-let us help him drive that home.

PS-Much of the electorate, because of BIG MEGA conditioning, associates "Libertarian/libertarianism" with Lyndon LaRouche.
Despite the fact that is an incorrect perception, it is a major and damaging perception among the less informed universe of voters.

Thanks and no disrespect intended.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

wedge issue for RP supporters

Barring the fact that I disagree with several of the historic and philosophical interpretations made in this article, this post can place a wedge between conservative and libertarian supporters of Dr. Paul.

I am a Kirkean conservative and there is a compelling traditionalist conservative case for Ron Paul.

Sorry I do not have time to argue the issue further, but I am only commenting because you need to remember that there are many Ron Paul supporters out there who are not libertarian ideologues.

A Farmer for Ron Paul

Wow The More I Learn About Jefferson The More Impressed I Am

Thanks for continuing my education.

This is the line we need to draw in the sand.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

This is great. Yet also

This is great. Yet also frustrating. Why don't people get IT?!

I think one of the main reasons people don't get it...

I think one of the main reasons people don't get it is the confusion of labels and definitions. The actual word conservative is clearly some form of - a person or thing that "conserves", that's what MY brain forms when I define the word myself without Google... and for this little paragraph I'm not going to just to follow up on my opinion here.

Based on that my pee brain says much to what Ron says when he uses the word conservative... and describes how he is conservative.

I learned awhile back to my dismay that when people outside the "know" (I'm not going to use left, right, socialist... cause as we have identified the common use of these words and the understanding and lack of agreement on them as to what they mean lessens their effective useage.) - sometimes think conservative means they want to control social and bedroom issues but be fiscally responsible... I was like what!!!???? you must be kidding... But now this article sums that up well.

To many I think Libertarian has a hard edge sound to it... like maybe we're so picky, infight all the time, we're so individualist we can't get anything "done" and we certaintly can't win a "modern" presidential election as a party... (many reasons why ;))

Anyways, I find it sad yet again that a perfectly good word is completely highjacked by a group of people who don't even know what they are, I mean we are, I mean... confusing isn't it? This is why societal labels are ok in their beginning but slippery slope into completely ineffective and damaging down the road almost like a good government program.

Thanks for the article Tom!