Author: VD

This is in response to the Evangelical Outpost’s Virtue Ethics and Broken Windows: Why I am not a libertarian.

Like other “ism’s”, libertarianism is difficult to define. Essentially, libertarians believe that each person “owns” his own life and property, and has the right to make his own decisions about how he shall live, providing he respects the rights of others to do the same. Cato Institute vice-president David Boaz adds that the basic political issue of libertarianism is the relationship of the individual to the state.

The primary flaw in libertarianism is that it is rooted in an ethic of utilitarianism rather than virtue ethics. Without a person developing the corresponding moral character necessary for self-restraint, his liberty is bound to result in the harm of others. In fact, freedom without virtue is corrosive and will destroy everything within its range. The Founding Fathers understood this connection between liberty and a virtuous citizenry when they founded our republic.

This is absolutely true. However, we have two choices. To abandon the primacy of the individual and accept the modern conservative notion that the state is justified in wielding its power to modify individual conceptions of morality and behavior, or to seek to remove this utilitarian flaw. There is without question a connection between liberty and a virtuous citizenry, however, virtue consists of far more than simply obeying a law under fear of state violence. I submit that a virtuous citizenry may be more easily achieved by example, social pressure and a refusal to permit the state to protect and sustain unvirtuous behavior than by the oft-failed attempt to wield state power in support of virtue.

Libertarians, however, are not hedonists. They do believe that the rule of law is essential to government, though instead of rooting it in natural law theory they rely on “spontaneously developed legal rules.” (I find it rather surprising that a theory that relies on such concepts “natural rights” and “natural harmony” has so little use for “natural law.”)

My answer to the utilitarian flaw rests on precisely this point. Christian libertarianism, or Natural Freedom, if you will, is open to the precepts of natural law theory. Indeed, the notion of Natural Freedom stems from the Divine creation of free will, and suggests that since God refrains from using his omnipotence to enforce virtue, the human polity should do likewise and refrain from using its power to the greatest extent possible.

Boaz also contends that individuals should not be subject to the state’s “arbitrary commands.” (The fact that he doesn’t explain the difference between rules that are “spontaneously developed” and those that are “arbitrary” is simply one of numerous problems with his viewpoint.) By placing an overemphasis on individual liberty without an equal accent on individual virtue, the libertarian unwittingly erodes the foundation of order on which his political theory stands.

This point, quite obviously, cannot be made against a Christian libertarianism based on Natural Freedom. Individual liberty depends on public virtue, which in return depends on individual virtue that cannot be imposed by external forces.

Order is a necessary precondition of liberty and must be maintained from the lowest level of government (the individual conscience) to the highest (the state). The individual conscience is the most basic level of government and it is regulated by virtues. Liberty, in this view, is not an end unto itself but a means by which eudaimonia (happiness or human flourishing) can most effectively be pursued. Liberty is a necessary component of virtue ethics, but it cannot be a substitute. Since it is based on the utilitarian principle that puts liberty, rather than eudaimonia as the chief end of man, libertarianism undermines order and becomes a self-defeating philosophy.

Again, inapplicable. I admit that virtue is the chief end of man, and without it liberty will not survive long in either the individual or the society.



It is either cultivated from within, through self-disciple, or is forced upon an individual from forces outside themselves (i.e., by the laws or mores of the community) if they lack the requisite character. Once established, this order has to be maintained to be effective. In the absence of order there is no peace, no justice, and certainly no “natural harmony.”

History is rife with examples of failure to impose virtue using state power, with most devolving ultimately into tyranny. Even the most powerful totalitarian states have found themselves impotent in the face of individual will. (This, in fact, is the foundation for my theory of socialist crisis.)



Therefore before we can address the relationship between “the individual and the state” we must first establish the relationship between individual liberty and order maintenance. Take, for example, the “victimless crimes” of prostitution, vagrancy, or public drunkenness. Theoretically, libertarians should support the “decriminalization” of all these acts since they do not necessarily harm other people or their property. But how long could a community last if such liberty is granted free reign?

There is no such thing as public drunkenness where there is no public ownership. Vagrancy can only be trespassing where there is nothing but private property. In a society with an actual right of free association, such behaviors would not be permitted to take place wherever the majority of individuals did not approve of it. There are numerous historical examples of unsavory characters finding it impossible to make a living where their presence was not desired; the fact that such ostracism is now defined as illegal discrimination only shows that the State is a two-edged sword, more foe to liberty than friend. As anyone with an experience of Japan knows, ostracism can be a more powerful societal weapon than law. Decriminalization does not necessarily imply societal acceptance nor granting such “liberty” free rein.

In a similar fashion, the breakdown of community standards does not break down all at once. Rather each “broken window” of virtuous behavior (recreational use of drugs, for example) leads to more “window-breaking” until the community lacks the “virtue” necessary to govern itself and requires a higher level (the state) to step in.

If the window-breaker finds himself unable to survive in the community, he will not break many windows. Broken Window theory does not apply. However, this illustrates why eradicating the right of free association is paramount for the would-be tyrant. If it is in effect, there will likely not be enough chaos out of which he can justify his particular brand of order.



Libertarians, of course, are primarily from the middle to upper classes of society. They are not affected by such behavior precisely because the police maintain a level of order and discipline within their communities. If, however, they had to live with such activity on a day-to-day basis, they would likely revise what was considered “arbitrary” and what is considered “spontaneous.”

This reveals the inherently backward-thinking of the conservative position. Middle and upper class society is not unaffected by such behavior because the police maintain order and discipline, it is unaffected because such behavior does not take place primarily due to the virtue and behavioral expectations of the individuals who live in such communities.

I once committed an act of petty vandalism, spray-painting a street sign. I was never caught, nor was the remorse I felt afterwards based on any guilt for breaking the law. As an upper-middle class boy with upper-middle class aesthetics, I was disturbed by the ugly appearance of the vandalized sign. Finally, one night, I went out with paint thinner and did my best to remove the paint. I was quite relieved when, a few months later, the sign was replaced.

The War on Drugs demonstrates how the conservative impulse to use the power of the state to impose virtue lapses insensibly into tyranny. And it is this tyranny of imposed virtue that accounts for the similarity between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, as they use precisely the same method of state power in pursuit of different definitions of virtue.

Christian libertarianism is not a halfway point of social liberalism and economic conservativism. It is, rather, the most natural and logical philosophy of individual freedom and individual virtue, and one, I believe, that is the most consistent with the Constitutional vision of human liberty set forth by the American Founding Fathers.

What to call the “War on Terror”? It’s nothing of the kind, of course, being neither a Constitutionally-declared war nor an action consistently opposed to terrorism. No country that funds Arafat’s gang of thugs can call itself anti-terror, regardless of what else it does. So whatever we’re fighting, it isn’t “terror”. I’m all for fighting wars against those who have already declared war on us… but I’d like to see the our leaders -ahem- obey their oaths to follow the bloody Constitution before I offer my unqualified support for their actions.

I think “police action” sounds about right, hearkening as it does back to the good old days of UN leadership – very appropriate in light of how everything has continued to revolve around the UN one way or another since the very beginning. The Police Action on Baathist Dictatorships? Well, we invaded Afghanistan and left Syria alone, so that won’t work. The Police Action on Officially Disapproved Anti-Humanists? That sounds like we’re going to invade the Liberty University and the 700 Club, which isn’t happening no matter how much the Deenie-weenies would like to make it so.

The Police Action on Declared Enemies? But we haven’t declared anyone to be the enemy, except for the Axis of Evil, two-thirds of which we’re ignoring while we invade other countries. The Police Action on Self-Declared Enemies? We’re not invading Iran or Saudi Arabia. Then again, when you’re thinking language, you’ve really got to think Rummy. The Police Action on Doable Enemies? It’s a good start.

If anyone has any better suggestions, let me know.

The Evangelical Outpost has correctly taken NRO to task on its recent publishing of some non-conservative articles of late. Here’s the comment I made to him:

“While I’m personally glad to see NR/NRO take a more libertarian tone, I have to admit that I’m more than a little underwhelmed by the arguments of Lopez, Ponnuru and Goldberg in justifying/excusing/denying the fact that they have done so.

Much as I admire and enjoy the work of the NR/NRO gang, I’ve noticed that while they seldom mind being attacked from the Left -it’s expected- it’s rather obvious that being attacked from the Right is a little tougher for them to bear. Which, unfortunately, is likely going to happen more and more often as the more kneejerk Republicans in their midst are dragged left by the current Republican leadership.

I wouldn’t recommend canceling your subscription, though, Joe. I think you’re more open to libertarianism than you might think, at least the Christian libertarianism I’ve been advocating. NR/NRO isn’t the Republican party, the NROniks aren’t power-hungry individuals without principles and they’ve actually done enough service for the Right’s cause to allow them some benefit of the doubt.

Of course, if they eventually follow the Republican party into endorsing 100 percent taxation, mandatory homosexuality, human sacrifice and global UN sovereignty, I’ll join you in dropping my subscription.”

Amber Pawlik writes: A man’s sexual attraction to a woman is largely physical in nature; a woman’s sexual attraction to a man is largely spiritual. A man is sexually aroused predominantly by the female figure. A man’s sexual attraction to a woman is seeing a woman with a great body, with healthy hair, a pretty face. For a woman, her sexual attraction is fundamentally different. A woman is not predominantly attracted to particular physical attributes of a man, but rather is attracted to masculinity, i.e. his ability to behave as a hero. As such, when a man or a woman rejects heterosexuality, for the man, it will be physical in nature and for the woman, it will be spiritual in nature.

A homosexual man will be someone repulsed by the female figure. Instead, he admires the male figure. Indeed, he likes it so much that he demands his partner be very good-looking. This is why gay men are often highly attractive. For a homosexual woman, however, it is not that she is attracted or repulsed by the male figure — she is repulsed by masculinity. Indeed, no woman is particularly attracted to the male physique — a woman’s attraction to a man is the ability to admire him.

I think that women’s attaction to masculinity is more primal than Amber suggests. It’s not just the ability to behave as a hero, it’s raw power, be it revealed in character, wealth, physical strength, intelligence or fame. She’s on to something here, though, as one thing I learned from my time in the software industry is that if you’re a straight man and you’re picky about who you date, move to the Bay Area. The women there are so starved for masculinity – even the straight men are over-metrosexualized – that a Midwesterner can silence an entire Adobe department filled with women simply by walking in the room. Big Chilly married a pretty cheerleader from Monterrey and except for his exceptional intelligence, he’s a normal Minnesota Swedegian. So we all burst out laughing when one of the Chilliette’s Bay Area bridemaids met him, and said: “he’s nice, but isn’t he a little, I don’t know, macho?”

Right, everyone knows that Swedish-Norwegian Lutherans are reknowned for their touchy Latin machismo. I think it was his walking through the room, nodding to the women, then slapping Chilliette on the butt as he walked by and saying nothing more than “what’s up, babe” that struck the Bay Area girl as utterly alien behavior. But that’s a lack of diffidence, not puffed-up insecurity.

It’s always strange, too, to see how many lesbians literally cringe in fear from nothing more than the presence of a masculine man. You feel as if simply saying “boo” will cause them to die of heart failure on the spot. No loud noises… no sudden movements…. Amber’s point about the male physique thing is interesting too. There’s nothing more depressing for a weightlifter than to have a woman tell him that he’s too big, and that he’d look better if he’d just chill out on the muscle thing.

Charles Stross writes: it turns out that The Atrocity Archives (which has just been proof-read and is off to the printer) can be pre-ordered from Amazon, as can Iron Sunrise!

I read the first two parts of The Atrocity Archives in serial form in Spectrum magazine – it’s really funny, a blend of James Bond, tech geekery and transdimensional Cthulhoid evil. This is the book that I’ve been waiting two years to read. Don’t hesitate to get Accelerando when it is published either.

This is what you will be able to see happening more and more often as Microsoft moves towards trusted computing. It’s a hardware issue, you see, so if you don’t have the approved hardware, you’ll be out of luck if your software “requires” it. In this case, Microsoft just blew off everyone who was dumb enough to go with the Microsoft Reader format instead of Palm’s. Surprise, surprise. Doesn’t anyone ever learn?

Never use Microsoft if you have any choice in the matter. The decision will usually come back to haunt you. Big Chilly and I made over a million dollars one year based on our philosophy that Microsoft is dependably full of merde and sticking with third-party software libraries instead of doing what all of our competitors were doing and waiting for Microsoft’s promised solution. Which, of course, was not ready in time for the mission-critical deadline.

“[Jason] Dunn could not be reached for comment on Microsoft’s response, but in his weblog article he called the company’s decision “a slap in the face” for Pocket PC owners, adding that the company must take responsibility for its decision. “I still use Reader daily, and there’s some excellent free content out there, but Microsoft didn’t deliver on it’s commitment to give you an upgrade and that’s something they’re going to have to live with,” Dunn wrote.”

Somehow, I imagine they’ll survive. They have a lot of experience with this sort of thing.

Rich Lowry notes: According to WSJ today, Republicans had a 28-point lead over Democrats as party best able to “control government spending” in 1996. Now, their lead is just 2 points!

Apparently I was prescient for leaving the Republican party back in 1992. I’ve never regretted it for a second, and I hope to welcome many former Republicans to the Christian Libertarian, Libertarian or Constitutional ranks in the coming year. What I’d really like to see is a functional alliance formed between my theoretical CL party and the two Freedom parties.

As for the Republicans, well, they don’t mean it, ladies and gentlemen. It’s sad, but it’s absolutely true.

Definitely a concept whose time has come. I have long felt that the eco-freaks could not care less about the people who live in the places that the eco-freaks want to keep pristine. Good on them.

“The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity,morality and humanity,” says Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore. “The pain and suffering it inflicts on families indeveloping countries can no longer be tolerated.” Moore will be one of eight experts from around the world will demonstrate from first-hand experience how environmental extremists deny destitute nations electricity, and deepen the poverty, malaria, malnutrition, tuberculosis and dysentery that kill their people. “We intend to stop this callous eco-manslaughter,” says CORE national spokesman Niger Innis. “The green movement imposes the views of mostly wealthy, comfortable Americans and Europeans on mostly poor, desperate Africans, Asians and Latin Americans. It violates their most basic human rights. CORE will lay down the gauntlet. Eco-imperialism may not be a household word yet, but it will be after this conference, the first one to address these issues.”

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed the lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the 28-year-old law violated their Second Amendment right to own guns. The D.C. law prohibits ownership or possession of handguns and requires that others, such as shotguns, be kept unloaded, disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Walton ruled that the Second Amendment is not a broad-based right of gun ownership. “The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment’s objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias,” Walton wrote. He went on to say that the amendment was designed to protect the citizens against a potentially oppressive federal government.

Yes, that’s precisely why it was designed. Of course, the militias weren’t state militias then, which explodes Walton’s ludicrous argument. I hope the Supreme Court will hear this challenge, but I don’t expect that corrupt gang of tyrannical enablers to do so.

And I sure wish the Founding Fathers had left that cursed explanatory clause out. Never explain if you can help it; it only gives others the chance to twist your words.

VDH writes: Anwar Sadat, by his own admission, went to war in 1973 not to liberate outright the Sinai (that was militarily impossible), but to show the Arab world he could surprise — and for three to four days even stun — the Israelis, and thereby restore the wounded “pride” of the Egyptians. We think that the total encirclement of his Third Army was a terrible defeat — saved from abject annihilation by American diplomacy and Soviet threat. Egyptians saw it instead as a source of honor that it even got across the canal.

I have the advantage of being acquainted, to varying degrees, with three distinct non-American cultures. Thus, it always surprises me when Americans are surprised when people from other cultures do not analyze things as we do. A victory-obsessed culture such as the United States can barely relate to the blase Europeans, much less a culture excited about the military equivalent of kicking the ball off and tackling the return man.

Some of my Italian friends were shocked when I told them the day after 9/11 that more than one Arab country was certain to be conquered. Right or wrong, it was inevitable. (I don’t have a problem with warring on terrorists; I do have a problem with a) not following the Constitution; b) encroaching on American liberties while simultaneously opening borders; and c) invading countries while ignoring the country responsible for the attack.) Now, I imagine they’d be surprised when I say that I don’t believe we’re done yet, either.

It’s important to keep in mind Nazi Germany never attacked us either, and yet we fought them until they were crushed. Americans are fat, lazy and irresponsible. But the same determination to win that pervades American culture, that once transformed Jewish accountants and Midwest farmboys into some of the most lethal warriors in history, is still alive and today it applies to fat suburban video gamers and fatherless inner city petty criminals as it once did to their grandfathers. I am not saying this is a universally good thing; it poses its own dangers as we are led too easily into war and domineering hubris. But this national trait does not bode well for the enemy within or without.

Consider this. The Taliban is fallen. Saddam Hussein is a captive. And yet, in all sincerity, many of us – myself included- are not even sure that we’ve accomplished much of anything at all. No wonder the Arabs think we’re crazy. By their standards, we are.