Libertarians on Abortion

I'm going to having more on libertarianism in an upcoming essay. I don't see it as a governing ideology, although certainly we could improve a lot of public life, especially economic life, by adopting a way more libertarian programmatic agenda. That said, I've always disliked the rejection of a lot of social morality in libertarianism, and Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie capture some of the moral spinelessness at the clip:

It's enough to say, as Matt Welch does, that one supports the freedom element of the right to an abortion. That part is fine. I've never argued we should have 100 percent criminalization of abortion. The squishy ground is where Nick Gillespie treads, and I don't think he acquits himself well. In fact, he's so squishy he harms even the liberty case for the pro-choice position. Libertarianism becomes a license for perverse libertinism. It's sick to think about what happens to the baby when a woman exercises that sliding scale for the termination of pregnancy. But again, that's why I'm neoconservative on domestic issues.

Ed Morrissey, who prompted the clip, has more: "Video: What is the libertarian position on abortion?"

Progressives Cheer Death of Motorcyclist Who Died Protesting Helmet Laws

I guess the death of Philip Contos, who lost control and flew over the handlebars on his '83 Harley, hitting his head, gives ideological vindication to the progressive left, some of whom are gleefully mocking the rider. The background details are at Clutch & Chrome, "Rider dies at motorcycle helmet protest in New York State."

The death of a motorcycle rider while protesting helmet laws in upstate New York has made international headlines.

The tragic irony around the death of 55-year-old Philip A. Contos won’t be lost on those involved in the ongoing debate which weighs rights against needs in the case of mandatory helmet laws. Nor will it be the last time the events of Saturday June 2nd are discussed.

The accident happened Saturday afternoon in the town of Onondaga, in central New York near Syracuse. Contos was taking part participating in a protest ride against helmet laws in upstate New York in an event organized by American Bikers Aimed Towards Education, or ABATE.

ABATE is a motorcycle rights group organized by chapters all over the United States and promotes motorcycle safety, awareness and education and organizes motorcycle rides.

Contos was riding his 1983 Harley-Davidson with a group of bikers who were protesting helmet laws by not wearing helmets when tragedy struck.

"He hit the brakes, lost control, was ejected and struck his head on the road,“ State Trooper Robert Jureller said, “He suffered a skull fracture."

Crooks & Liars is using the story to ridicule self-interested personal behavior, which is apparently a lesson for "Ayn Rand fans." See, "Moral of The Story: When You Always Put Your Own Interests First, It Can Work Against Your Interests." And even worse is ASFL John Cole at Balloon Juice, "Freedumb Riders."

Don Surber responds, "Mocking the Dead." (Via Memeorandum.)

InstaVision: 'Libertarians to the Rescue'

Via Glenn Reynolds:

Buy the book: The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America.

Man's Rights

Well, with all the recent talk about "Atlas Shrugged," I've been skimming back over some of her writings. The novel is almost 1,100 pages, and I have no plans to re-read it (although I'm considering The Fountainhead for another round). I have been reading some of Rand's essays, for example, "Man's Rights", which is featured in her book, The Virtue of Selfishness. A sample:

The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system—as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history.

All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self- sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action-which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

More at the link.

Kurt Loder Reviews 'Atlas Shrugged' at Reason

See "Where is John Galt?":

Anyone not familiar with Rand’s novel will likely be baffled by the goings-on here. Characters spend much time hunkered around tables and desks nattering about rail transport, copper-mining, and the oil business. A few of these people are stiffly virtuous (“I’m simply cultivating a society that values individual achievement”), but most are contemptible (“We must act to benefit society”…“a committee has decided”…“We rely on public funding.”) These latter creeps should set our blood boiling, but they’re so cartoonishly one-dimensional that any prospective interest soon slumps. We are initially intrigued by the recurring question, “Who is John Galt?” But since the movie covers only the first third of the novel (a crippling miscalculation), we never really find out, apart from noticing an anonymous figure lurking around the edges of the action, togged out in a trench coat and a rain-soaked fedora like a film-noir flatfoot who’s wandered into an epoch far away from his own.

She's Hot. She's Sexy ... Ayn Rand's Bigger Than Ever

From Matt Welch at Hit and Run, "How Ayn Rand 'was loathed by the mainstream conservative movement'."

Following the links takes to Donald Luskin's piece at WSJ, "Remembering the Real Ayn Rand: The author of "Atlas Shrugged" was an individualist, not a conservative, and she knew big business was as much a threat to capitalism as government bureaucrats."

Welch notes that Luskin's got a new book coming out, "I Am John Galt: Today's Heroic Innovators Building the World and the Villainous Parasites Destroying It." And he also points us to Reason's 2009 cover story, "She’s Back! Ayn Rand is bigger than ever. But are her new fans radical enough for capitalism?" It's a little dated (nobody's "going Galt," for example), although there's an important message there, revived again this week by President Obama's speech on the budget:

For Rand’s popularity to achieve political traction, Randism will have to move beyond the strange preoccupation of a few politicians and the full-time passion of two specialist think tanks. Her ideas will need to become the guiding principle for a significant voting bloc or politically active movement. And that is a difficult problem for Objectivism, which as an organized movement never managed to convert the millions of cash-paying Rand customers into active “radicals for capitalism,” to use the author’s own self-description.

I love the celebration of the individual, but I'm no atheist and some of Rand's individualist abandon leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But Rep. Paul Ryan is cited at the piece. Ryan's Catholic, so he's not going in whole hog for Rand's vision in the moral sphere. But he does endorse the emphasis on liberty in the market (narrowly defined), and the threat from the bureaucratic Leviathan that's more real than ever under the current Democrat regime. I think these points indicate an adaptable Randism for people who aren't that radical. Frankly, it's pretty rad just to go Rand on economic individualism, so folks can sort out Objectivist ethics in others moral realms after that point.

'Atlas Shrugged': New Film Takes Sorta Randian Road to Big Screen

I'm surprised.

A decent and fair report on the front page of today's Los Angeles Times, "'Atlas Shrugged' finally comes to the screen, albeit in chunks."

It has taken businessman John Aglialoro nearly 20 years to realize his ambition of making a movie out of "Atlas Shrugged," the 1957 novel by Ayn Rand that has sold more than 7 million copies and has as passionate a following among many political conservatives and libertarians as "Twilight" has among teen girls.

But the version of the book coming to theaters Friday is decidedly independent, low-cost and even makeshift. Shot for a modest $10 million by a first-time director with a cast of little-known actors, "Atlas Shrugged: Part I," the first in an expected trilogy, will play on about 300 screens in 80 markets. It's being marketed with the help of conservative media and "tea party" organizing groups and put into theaters by a small, Salt Lake City-based booking service.

The fact that one of the 20th century's most influential books is coming to movie screens in such a fashion is — depending on whom you ask — a reflection of liberal Hollywood's aversion to Rand's ideas, a symptom of Aglialoro's rigid adherence to them, or a testament to the challenges inherent in adapting the complex tome.

Aglialoro ultimately made a movie that hews more to Rand's ideology than the conventions of cinematic storytelling, at the risk that far fewer people will see it. Taking a page from the independent blockbuster "The Passion of the Christ," however, he is paying for his own theater bookings and marketing his film to an audience Hollywood often overlooks.

Keep reading at the link. The piece notes that the producers "showed footage at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington..." Also mentioned there is Freedomworks, where bloggers at the CPAC blog-bash saw a preview screening of the film's trailers.

The movie comes out next Friday, April 15th. There's a couple of local tea parties that day, so I might see it on Saturday --- and then I'll update with my own review.

True Conservatives

I'm trippin' on this graphic, from Melissa Clouthier, "Should Libertarians Be Banned From CPAC?" (via Memeorandum). It's not developed from Melissa's discussion, but can we say the tea party represents "true conservatism" if large numbers of tea partiers are closer to the libertarian position on defense? I'm neocon, and firmly is the defense and social conservatives circles, but I'm also a tea partier and would like to see more fiscal restraint in government, although that circle's less defining of my ideological identity. Anyway, folks'll have to read Melissa's post to see if she'd boot libertarians from CPAC. (And folks should check Midnight Blue's CPAC updates, while I'm thinking about it.)

P.S. I doubt Dan Riehl would be a "true conservative" as measured by the graph. He's not a big defense kinda guy, but nevertheless touts himself as an ideological gatekeeper.