Burnt Orange Report

Libertarianism versus localism

By Jim Dallas

This statement by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Lake Jackson), got put up on a message board I read regularly. It reads, in part:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support, and cosponsor, the Pledge Protection Act (HR 2028), which restricts federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase “under God” should be included in the pledge of allegiance. Local schools should determine for themselves whether or not students should say “under God” in the pledge. The case finding it is a violation of the First Amendment to include the words “under God” in the pledge is yet another example of federal judges abusing their power by usurping state and local governments’ authority over matters such as education. Congress has the constitutional authority to rein in the federal courts’ jurisdiction and the duty to preserve the states’ republican forms of governments. Since government by the federal judiciary undermines the states’ republican governments, Congress has a duty to rein in rogue federal judges. I am pleased to see Congress exercise its authority to protect the states from an out-of-control judiciary.

On its face, this turn would appear to be another fine libertarian moment from Dr. No. However, I think it's worth having a discussion about whether protecting local prerogative is really the appropriate way to protect individual freedom.

Whilie localism may have represented the original intent of the Constitution's framers (the First Amendment originally restrained only Congress, and several states maintained state churches well into the 1830s), this philosophy is chracterized by indifference towards local whims, which is not the same as a libertarian Constitutionally-mandated neutrality towards religion. If religious posturing is not an appropriate act of state, this ought to apply universally. And the last time I checked, one of the claims of libertarianism (or at least classical liberalism) was its aspiration towards universality.

Rep. Paul has a similar dilemma when faced with the issue of abortion. The libertarian pro-choice position is simple: recognizing that, irregardless of an unborn child's right to life, any law prohibiting abortion would, of necessity, be coercive and unconscionably destructive of a woman's liberty, dignity, and autonomy, not to mention that such an act would also, necessarily, treat women as ends and not means.

But Rep. Paul is pro-life. And there is also a simple pro-life position that a libertarian could take: that abortions deprive the unborn child of life; that not criminalizing abortions denies the unborn child's right to life; and that the pro-choice, generally, makes a mockery and sham out of life and liberty.

Either choice would be perfectly logical and would flow naturally from libertarian philosophy. And as a matter of fact, Ron Paul is pro-life: in a localist sort of way. While he has voted for some restrictions on abortion - and maintains a zero rating from NARAL - but also voted against other acts, warning of a "national police state."

I am at a loss to explain how fifty-one (the states and DC) different abortion bans would be any better (or worse) than one federal one, unless you impute localist values.

Of course, one can argue that by federalizing every issue, we are depriving the states of the freedom to choose. And this is undoubtedly so. But it seems to me that a political philosophy rooted in universal morality would tend to federalize those issues with the most moral content - which naturally tend to be those involving religion, crimes, and sundry social issues. Curiously, those are the issues which many Americans, including many libertarians, most doggedly hope will remain at the state level.

Personally, I'm quite concerned about the federalization of crime. But such objections beg the question - are we or are we not one moral community?

I am reminded of the words of Abraham Lincoln, whose most brilliant rhetorical moments often involved assaulting localist doctrines:

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Posted by Jim Dallas at July 14, 2005 10:35 AM | TrackBack