Better Libertarianism

Posted on

This is a bit of my episode with Iowancap in which we discuss how Libertarianism might be served by considering how various schools of ethics relate. Hear the whole episode below. Enjoy. -P

Penjammin: I was just reading For a New Liberty by Rothbard, and his last chapter is a strategy for liberty . . . He makes one caveat in there that I thought was really fascinating and perhaps a little controversial, which is really what you're saying. The idea that– well, a conservative in Congress might prefer some sort of a policy compromise or a trade where they get a little bit of this, a little bit for that. Whereas a libertarian who might want agree with the conservative on the boon, you know, that's to be had (maybe lower taxes or something), but they won't also say, “okay, but for this, what we're going to do is we're going to introduce a new act of aggression by Washington, DC against the people.” I'm not going to positively support that. I'm going to hold principle. The goal is always not to be incrementalist or gradualist, but to have the whole thing now. But with that hope, you know, firmly in place, there's you accept gains as they come. You're not going to tell them no. But he always had that caveat. It's like, “but I'm not going to vote positively against my principles. I will accept gradual movement towards them, but I will not vote against them.” . . .

Iowancap: Yet, I think there there is also an idea where, sometimes you do go for less bad. Sometimes that is the move. I think. In fact, I suddenly realized, Pen, that this all worked out perfectly because I realized that it was that phrase that I told you that I really loved, that you said, that actually launched all this thinking for me.

Penjammin: Okay.

Iowancap: And that is when I saw it, it was in a in a group chat, I saw that you made the statement: The means must be worthy of the ends.

Penjammin: Yeah.

Iowancap: And I think that is really what I'm talking about. Yes, we should keep in mind the ends. We need to keep the goals in mind. And, we shouldn't live purely principally and say, “but let's not look at what works. Let's not look at strategy, let's not look at tactics. Let's not look at reality.” At the same time, we have to always keep our principles in mind because if the means are not worthy of the ends, then you could start asking the question: “Are we really going where we think we're going?”

Penjammin: Yeah.

Iowancap: Especially as a Christian, I think that's very important because obedience to the law of God, obedience to the gospel and to Christ's commands, that is ultimately a winning strategy, even if short term it is not.

Penjammin: Right. I mean, we've already won.

Iowancap: And so I think that's really where this whole tension of principles and strategy is so important. Yeah, let's look for strategic ways to get the gospel to go out. Let's look for strategic ways to accomplish and to carve out the freedom to do the work that the church needs to do. And yet, if we at any point find ourselves going against the law of God with a sort of ends justify the means sort of mentality, then– if the means are not worthy of the ends, then we should question whether or not the means are actually going to get us to the ends that we think we're going toward.

Penjammin: Yes, because that's how you trapped. I think when you play the game, you get played by the game. It doesn't work in the long run. And, that's how I think about third-party voting as well. But I'll leave that for another time.

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… (see “About”). Get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.