Assuming you are right, Norman (from one Norman to another), about the flaws with atheist libertarians being they tend to be narrow and utopian… what’s an atheist with paleolibertarian sensibilities to do? Not sure if you are claiming these problems are a tendency or necessary.
If it’s a mere tendency, it does not affect a given individual. It’s like these studies of statistical “correlations,” such as, people who play scrabble tend to have better love lives. That does not mean you can start playing scrabble to improve your love life–it might be that people that tend to have good love lives also tend to have the same interest that make you tend to like to play scrabble more than average. Likewise, a given atheist may be a utopian or narrowly selfish/libertine type, or not. If he is, his paleolibertarian status is marred because of these qualities; if not, then not. So if it’s just a tendency, it’s not very controversial, just a slightly interesting, but not very useful, observation. (And frankly, my guess would be that most pot smoking types would tend to be religious, if only of the New Age variety, than atheist.)
If it’s a more categorical pronouncement, that one basically cannot be a true libertarian if you are atheist; that to be paleo means you must, ultimately, be theist; that there is some inconsistency, or tension, between the two–well, that’s more provocative claim, but its accuracy is doubtful.
What is necessary, IMHO, if an atheist or agnostic is to be a good paleolibertarian (and my recollection is that Rothbard was a prime example of this–agnostic that is), is that he not be the moral relativist, cynical, nihilist type of atheist, but must somehow embrace a set of strong moral values compatible with those shared by sincerely religious people.
12:42 am on December 3, 2003
