Libertarian
Thought at the Dawn of the Third Millennium:
A Reply to Fukuyama
by
David Dieteman
On
May 2, 2002, "libertarianism" mistakenly appeared in a
rather official-sounding obituary.
Francis
Fukuyama, who has previously written of "the end of history"
(it was quite some time ago), now claims that:
the
liberal revolution of the 1980s and ‘90s, having morphed from
classical liberalism to libertarianism, [has] crested and now
[is] on the defensive.
Today,
the 103rd anniversary of the birth of Nobel prize-winning Austrian
economist F.A. Hayek, it must be observed that Professor Fukuyama
is completely wrong.
Like
the silver-tongued Saruman in Tolkien’s Lord
of the Rings, perhaps Fukuyama hopes that libertarians will
simply be seduced by his words and give up their quest for a better
world. Perhaps Fukuyama actually believes in "the end of libertarianism,"
but if he does, then such belief must rest upon a failure to consider
the big picture.
First,
the specifics. Fukuyama claims that "The libertarian wing of
the [Reagan-Thatcher] revolution overreached itself, and is now
fighting rearguard actions on two fronts: foreign policy and biotechnology."
Where
foreign policy is concerned, Fukuyama seems to want the United States
"to promote democracy and freedom abroad." In that regard,
he rehashes the claim that the tragedies of September 11 were "a
reminder to Americans of why government exists."
No,
they weren’t. And repeating this mistaken sound-bite will not make
it so.
Next,
Fukuyama contends that "Libertarians argue that the freedom
to design one’s own children genetically – not just to clone them,
but to give them more intelligence or better looks – should be seen
as no more than a technological extension of the personal autonomy
we already enjoy."
Predictably,
the word "Nazis" shows up alongside those who defend the
individual rights to life, liberty and property, i.e., the libertarians.
Never mind that libertarian political defenses of life, liberty
and property are directly contrary to the political beliefs
of the National Socialists (the Nazis), who wanted government control
of all aspects of social life.
Fukuyama
closes by writing that:
To
say, with libertarians, that individual freedom should encompass
the freedom to redesign those natures on which our very system
of rights is based, is not to appeal to anything in the American
political tradition.
And
now the libertarian response.
The
article’s most basic, and perhaps most prevalent, error is the error
of incorrect generalization.
Is
it philosophically necessary to the idea of liberty that eugenics
be applauded? Of course not.
For
example, I am a libertarian, meaning that I view the modern state
as anti-liberty and therefore antithetical to human flourishing
properly understood (i.e., in an Aristotelian-Thomistic sense).
Eugenics and cloning are objective moral evils deserving of the
harshest possible condemnation.
Note
that Fukuyama does not appear to oppose human cloning in and of
itself. Instead, he appears concerned that someone, in the process
of cloning, might attempt to make a few changes. God forbid. Once
the moral line of cloning has been crossed, it is difficult to see
what might be immoral about making alterations to an otherwise identically-cloned
being. But I digress.
Notice
that Fukuyama’s discussion of biotechnology fails to reference the
publications of any particular libertarian. Instead, Fukuyama makes
a blanket, unqualified claim that "libertarians" (all
of those maniacs!) favor eugenics. Nonsense. And empirically false.
While
on the topic of eugenics, however, it must be noted that Fukuyama
alludes to the "liberalism of the Founding Fathers" and
"the American political tradition." He is Mr. Apple Pie,
Mr. Mom. Hardly. Notice that Fukuyama also opines that:
Even
if one does not share the view of religious conservatives that
embryos have the moral status of infants, and are therefore entitled
to the same legal rights, there are reasons to be skeptical of
arguments that say that genetic engineering is just another choice.
Question:
exactly how different, biologically and ontologically, is an embryo
from a larger, out-of-the-womb infant? Where does Fukuyama conceive
(bad pun) that infants come from? How different, genetically, is
the five month old fetus from the five month old baby from the five
year old child from the fifty year old man? Hint: babies begin as
embryos, which is to say that a baby is an embryo that, well, grew
bigger, and was not killed in the meantime.
It
is beyond unreasoning to contend that the same child is human or
non-human "tissue" to be shredded based upon whether or
not the child has passed through the birth canal. The baby which
the new mother cradles in her arms is the exact same baby which
hours before was cradled in her uterus. Biology 101.
Later
in the article, matters get worse, as Fukuyama refers to embryos
as "something unquestioningly human, even if that something
doesn’t have the moral status of an infant." At this point,
it is necessary to ask: "What is an embryo, if it is unquestioningly
human, and not an infant?" Is an infant somehow "more"
than human? Of course not.
It
appears that Fukuyama’s position with respect to embryos is a function
of not wanting to believe in the human existence of unborn
children.
Additionally,
what is a "religious conservative"? A Republican that
goes to church? Are we supposed to conclude that "religious
leftists" have a theological justification for aborting babies?
If
this is not enough (or if the end of history wasn’t, for that matter),
here is a tip-off that Fukuyama is not quite the defender of liberty
and tradition that we might be led to believe. At one point, near
the middle of the article, where the reader’s eyes are thickly glazed,
he wonders:
But
do we really know what it means to improve a child?
I
am guessing that Johns Hopkins, where Fukuyama is a professor, does
not include this query with its tuition bills to parents.
(Before
moving on to Fukuyama’s discussion of foreign policy, a paradox
must be noted. On the one hand, Fukuyama worries that China and
India are birthing 20% more boys than girls. On the other hand,
he wonders if eugenics would "improve" children by eliminating
a propensity towards homosexuality, or, as he calls it, "gayness."
It seems that his two worries might solve one another. If not, then
the Democracts can appoint Joycelyn Elders – uniform and all – to
be a "special ambassador" to teach billions of Asians
to masturbate, and call it "foreign aid" of course. Should
there be a World Sperm Bank to guard against deflation?)
Where
foreign policy is concerned, Fukuyama’s statist take on the tragedies
of September 11 was given a terminal thrashing on LewRockwell.com
(and elsewhere) on, well, just after September 11, after the writers
recovered from the shock of the attacks (at least after this writer
recovered). Here it is May 2002, and the mantra continues unabated:
"the free market didn’t screen the airliners." One suspects
that the survival of the mantra is due, in part, to an unwillingness
to consider other possibilities.
Yes,
the free market didn’t screen the airliners. Exactly. The government
did the "screening." And it failed miserably.
To
those ensconced in the establishment, it may be that no historical
events will cause them to reconsider accepted orthodoxies.
This
does not mean that accepted orthodoxies are therefore correct.
Libertarian
political thought is alive and well. And it has not yet begun to
fight.
May
8, 2002
 Mr.
Dieteman [send him mail] is
an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy
at The Catholic University of America.
©
2002 David Dieteman
David
Dieteman Archives
LewRockwell.com
needs your help. Please donate.
|
