Reality is synonymous with truth, and truth is unyielding. One can choose to ignore it, scorn it, or even curse it, but all to no avail; in the end, truth impassively stands its ground in the face of the most overpowering emotional, verbal, and intellectual onslaughts.
Further, truth can be especially brutal to those who insist
on worshipping at the Altar of Theory. This is because truth
has a way of frustrating theory and, much like a mongoose
circling a snake, ultimately wearing it down and devouring
it.
More to the point, truth—or reality—seems to take special
delight in thumbing its nose at theory and leaving purist
libertarians frustrated in the process. So much so that the
past two-and-a-half decades have brought about a personal
and accelerating evolution that has brought me ever more
rapidly to what I consider to be a more mature view of life.
I believe this view has made it possible for me to see the
world as it actually is rather than the way I would like it
to be. Instead of seeing life as a black-and-white
objectivist or unyielding, anarchistic libertarian, I now
view life through the eyes of a hybrid ideologue:
theoretical libertarian/practical conservative.
I am painfully aware that my admission will be considered
nothing less than heresy in many quarters, because so many
people are emotionally and intensely tied to their
ideological beliefs. Indeed, the late Edith Efron once wrote
about the time that Ayn Rand put a curse on
her—literally—for daring to disagree with certain aspects of
her philosophy. The faithful tend to take these matters very
seriously.
Real Communism versus Theoretical Communism
In order to dismantle the fallacious underpinnings of
communism, one first has to differentiate between communist
theory (“theoretical communism”) and the realities of
communism (“real communism”). From Marx to Lenin to Mao to
today’s left-leaning college professors, communism has been,
and is, taught only in theory.
In the old Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, real communism
(i.e., communism in real life as opposed to theory) proved
to be a series of iron-fisted dictatorships that employed
inhumane tactics to keep people in line and strip them of
all rights, including property rights.
Theoretical communism refuses to accept the reality that
human beings—including the most charitable and noble among
us—always attempt to act in their own best interests. This
reality is an anathema not only to thousands of clueless
college kids who act as though they’ve just discovered sex
when first introduced to the great euphemism referred to as
“socialism,” but to their true-believer professors who are
caught in a time warp and hopelessly entrapped in the
collective mind-set of the sixties. They simply cannot
comprehend that self-interest does not preclude a person’s
being kind, considerate, charitable, honorable, and
civic-minded.
Karl Marx believed that the establishment of a dictatorship
was necessary in order to “help” people to act
altruistically. Naively, he believed that once people had
the opportunity to experience how wonderful it was to live
in a collective society, the dictatorship would be
dissolved.
Marx never had the opportunity to read George Orwell’s
Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which his character O'Brien
explained the truth about real communism.
No one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing
it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not
establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution;
one makes the revolution in order to establish the
dictatorship….The object of power is power.
Ultimately, of course, the truth mongoose wore down and
devoured the lies upon which theoretical communism was
based, and, in the process, succeeded in exterminating real
communism as well. Ironically, it was the permanence of the
iron-fisted dictatorships established by communism that
exposed the lie of theoretical communism and ultimately
caused the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union.
Now, time is the only factor that stands as a temporary and
fragile barrier to the fall of communism in such countries
as Cuba, China, and North Korea. Theoretical communism is a
lie that can be held in place only temporarily by brute
force, because both lies and force fail over the long term.
I offer this preview of theoretical communism versus real
communism as a prelude to explaining why pure libertarianism
cannot stand up to the realities of today’s world. While
theoretical communism and theoretical libertarianism are
almost exact opposites, they have at least one thing in
common: Both ideologies are based on a naïve view of human
nature.
Though its objectives are far more noble than those of
theoretical communism, theoretical libertarianism is equally
guilty of not taking into account an important aspect of
human nature. This aspect is embodied in names such as Kim
Jong-Il, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Josef Stalin,
Adolf Hitler, Ghengis Khan, and countless others who have
excelled at their craft since the beginning of recorded
history. By craft, I am referring to the desire and ability
to achieve power over others, and to do so with unabashed
brutality.
It is the combination of ruthless, power-hungry thugs such
as these coupled with the emergence and proliferation of
so-called weapons of mass destruction, long-range jetliners,
and modern communications technology (e.g., the Internet,
telemetry, and cellphones) that has brought a new reality to
Western civilization, a reality that is most easily
understood by referring to it as the “9/11 Factor.”
The most obvious problem that the 9/11 Factor poses for the
purist libertarian is the issue of civil rights. All
civilized human beings abhor the violation of anyone’s civil
rights, but what is even more abhorrent is the prospect of
having the Golden Gate Bridge demolished during rush-hour
traffic, the Sears Tower follow in the footsteps of the
World Trade Center, or Hoover Dam reduced to rubble in a
matter of minutes.
Does anyone truly believe that violence-prone hate mongers
who lust for world power would refrain from bringing death
to “evil” Americans if the United States suddenly adopted an
extremist peacenik platform toward the rest of the world? A
government’s primary function—many would argue it’s only
function—is to protect its citizens from aggression,
meaning, specifically, to protect their lives and property.
In today’s 9/11 world, the overriding question is whether
government can, in fact, succeed in protecting lives and
property without restricting certain freedoms. For example,
a basic freedom such as civil rights clashes with the
reality that there are millions of criminals around the
world whose main purpose in life is to help destroy Western
culture and, above all, the United States.
In theory, of course, security personnel have no right to
profile a Middle Eastern-looking man before he boards an
airplane; in reality, however, to not do so is either
extremely naïve, ignorant, or perhaps even insane. I will
always remember the chilling quote attributed to Mohammed
Atta before he embarked on his suicide mission of crashing a
jetliner into the World Trade Center on 9/11. Said Atta
simply, “The enemy is stupid.”
Clearly, freedom haters throughout the world fully
understand that America’s greatest strength—democracy—is
also its Achilles heel.
The Enemies from Within
Unfortunately, aggression from brainwashed fanatics from
other countries is not the most ominous threat to Western
civilization. Far more threatening is the enemy from within.
Or, more properly, the enemies from within.
What I am referring to here are the sworn enemies of the
very heart and soul of Western civilization, a generally
accepted code of civilized conduct. Plain and simple, no
civilization can continue to exist, let alone flourish,
without a moral foundation that is not only clearly
understood, but accepted and practiced by a large majority
of its citizens.
To employ a parody, the barbarians are not at the gates;
they are inside the gates. The enemies from within include a
wide array of forces that clearly are intent on undermining
all that is decent, pure, and civilized in Western culture.
To be sure, Western culture is imperfect, but, for all its
flaws, it is still the freest and most civilized culture the
world has ever known. The destructive forces I am referring
to have all but hijacked America. A small sampling of these
forces includes such things as:
* A court system whose aim is not to arrive at the
truth, but to go to unreasonable extremes to protect the
rights of the accused.
* Mainstream Americans who are now willing to refer to
“rap”—a savage wailing that extols, among other things,
drugs, crime, and sexual exploitation of women—as a form
of music and thereby anoint it with an air of legitimacy.
* Vulgar, in-your-face displays on prime-time television,
such as Britney Spears and Madonna wet-kissing and Janet
Jackson’s bare-breast presentation at the halftime show of
Super Bowl XXXVIII.
* Glorification of college athletes who are unable to
speak intelligible English, let alone take and pass
serious college courses.
* A tidal wave of pornography, particularly on the
Internet, that encourages everything from rape to incest
to pedophilia.
* Superstar trial lawyers who siphon billions of dollars
from the economy by filing what society once viewed as
frivolous lawsuits.
* A virtual surrender of our borders to illegal
immigrants, followed by granting them rights and benefits
once reserved only for citizens.
* A Supreme Court that for decades has been taking it upon
itself to create new laws in direct violation of the
Constitution.
* Violence-laden video games that send a message to kids
that killing other human beings is no big deal.
All of the examples on this brief list are well known to
everyone but the walking dead, and what they have in common
is that all of them chip away at the foundation of Western
culture. However, even when theoretical libertarians oppose
a threat—such as the Supreme Court’s insistence on creating
new laws—they have not demonstrated that they have the will
to take aggressive action.
Sadly, libertarians have a reputation for fighting their
battles in an intellectual arena, which has proven to be
ineffectual in the real world. By real world, I am referring
to a world where enemies of freedom and Western culture have
no qualms about lying, cheating, deceiving, and even using
force, if necessary, to achieve their ends.
A worse problem, however, is that theoretical libertarians
do not even oppose most of these threats. After all, the
keystone of theoretical libertarianism is that everyone
should be allowed to live his life as he so chooses so long
as he does not forcibly interfere in the lives of others.
One is left to conclude that if such tolerance results in
the extinction of our culture, so be it.
I should point out that I do not see this threatening
situation so much as good versus evil, because the debate
over good and evil—and, indeed, whether good and evil even
exist—is an intellectual and religious hornet’s nest. The
concept of good and evil is, in fact, at the heart of all
the religious wars through the centuries, including and
especially today’s global war—the first literal world war in
recorded history.
Therefore, rather than a matter of good versus evil, I see
today’s world-wide conflict as one between civilized and
uncivilized people. Framing the problem in this fashion
removes from the equation such emotive factors as religion,
skin color, sex, and nationality.
What I’m saying here is that there are civilized Hindus as
well as civilized Christians. There are civilized people of
color as well as civilized Caucasians. There are civilized
men as well as civilized women. There are civilized Iranians
as well as civilized Americans.
Millions of Americans have bought into the big lie that
diversity is what makes our country great. But the truth of
the matter is that diversity is not a strength; it’s a
weakness. This is so self-evident that I am tempted to posit
it as an axiom.
History makes it clear that diversity is not a helpful
ingredient for keeping a civilization intact. Diversity has
always proven to be a divider of people. It’s important to
point out here that diversity has nothing whatsoever to do
with skin color, but everything to do with culture.
When some English settlers, and later U.S. citizens,
partnered with black African slave traders to bring slavery
to the Western hemisphere, it was among the worst human
atrocities in recorded history. Actions do, indeed, have
consequences, and one of the most painful, long-lasting
consequences of bringing slavery to our shores was that it
brought with it a basically uncivilized culture. And this,
in turn, resulted in an explosive cultural diversity that we
have not fully resolved to this day.
Skin color, however, has never been the issue. It has been a
long, hard struggle, fraught with racism and injustice, but
millions of black Americans have succeeded in adapting to
Western culture. For these black Americans, diversity is not
a problem.
Diversity, however, is a major issue when it comes to those,
both black and white, who despise Western culture. These are
the individuals who revel in all that is repugnant to
civilized people of goodwill, people who make a sincere
attempt to abide by Western civilization’s generally
accepted code of conduct.
These haters of Western culture are among the worst of the
barbarians dwelling inside our gates, and it is clear that
nothing short of a total collapse of our long-accepted code
of conduct will satisfy them. Because they are rebels
without a moral cause, any attempt to pacify or reason with
them is folly.
The Great Paradox
Where I believe theoretical libertarianism fails the
real-world test is in coming to grips with the dangers posed
by uncivilized people in every country of the world, and, in
particular, uncivilized people who are in positions of
absolute power. Because libertarians believe that there is
only one true law—the natural law against aggression—a
purist libertarian would wait until a crazed fanatic
detonated a nuclear weapon in midtown Manhattan before
taking action.
Worse, the same libertarian would ignore the enemies from
within and sit idly by as Western culture disintegrated
before his very eyes. The implied motto is: No harm, no
foul. And since no one has the moral right, let alone the
power, to define either harm or foul, Mohammed Atta’s
observation about our stupidity looks ever more accurate.
Relativism, which goes back to at least the time of the
Greek Empire, is in full blossom throughout the civilized
world. Who’s to say what’s right and wrong? After all, isn’t
everything just a matter of opinion? In new-millennium
America, anything goes.
If the 9/11 Factor and the internal decay of Western culture
over the past four decades have taught us anything, it is
that the great paradox of democracy is alive and well. The
paradox I am referring to is that in order to preserve
freedom, freedom must to some extent be restricted.
In theory, unlimited freedom is a good thing. No one
believes this more than I. It is, in fact, my ultimate
fantasy. In reality, however, an excess of freedom is an
enemy of civilized society. It opens the gates to barbarians
whose main purpose in life is the spread of death, and it
encourages the barbarians from within to continually raise
the stakes of their anything-goes attitude.
What makes theoretical libertarianism impotent is that,
unlike theoretical communism, it has no counterpart to real
communism to enforce its doctrine of freedom. Theoretical
libertarianism is real libertarianism, and libertarianism
does not seek to establish a dictatorship to force people to
act out of goodwill and refrain from committing aggression.
Theoretical libertarianism relies on the voluntary goodwill
of everyone. As a result, purist libertarianism is
impractical in a world gone mad. Clearly, it needs a strong
partner to help it enforce freedom.
Enter practical conservatism. My definition of practical
conservatism is an ideology that believes in adherence to
the tenets of pure libertarianism to the fullest practical
extent, but also believes in the use of force, when and
where it is absolutely necessary, to protect not only the
lives and property of citizens, but to maintain society’s
generally accepted code of conduct.
Just as democracy is not a perfect political system, neither
is theoretical libertarianism/ practical conservatism a
perfect philosophy. Restricting freedom is not a subject to
be taken lightly. The age-old question of whose freedom, and
how much freedom, should be restricted in order to protect
lives, property, and Western civilization looms as large as
ever.
The only thing we know for certain is that under today’s
democracies throughout the world, people are gradually
losing their freedoms, and they certainly are losing their
once revered civilizations. Oversimplified, the rights of
producers and people who abide by the generally accepted
code of conduct of Western civilization are being
increasingly trampled by special-interest groups, parasites,
and relativists who revel in sloth and vulgar behavior.
I believe that it’s time to fight back and restore the
ideals that comprise the embodiment of Western culture. And
I believe that the best hope to accomplish this end is a
partnership between theoretical libertarianism and practical
conservatism, with theoretical libertarianism being the
senior partner.
In other words, when in doubt, the scales should always be
tipped toward freedom. But when our safety and culture are
in obvious jeopardy, we should be prepared to draw the line
on civil rights, be proactive, and even employ preemptive
force when it is clear that such action could be the
difference between the destruction and survival of our
cherished way of life.
