Judge Napolitano Explains Vulgar Libertarianism

Old but gold, today’s article comes from a December 2013 episode of the O’Reilly Factor.  The subject: a federal judge’s ruling on polygamy in Utah.

Bill O’Reilly presents us the modern, toothless, “conservative” take on not conserving much of anything in America.  Andrew Napolitano offers the unbrutal and hypocritical “libertarian” perspective on the erosion of our liberty.

Both men would rather appeal to their cow-brained demo than try and discuss the serious issues underlying our culture today.  Of course.

Trigger Warning: Modern Realpolitik

After O’Reilly’s tepid assertion of there being a slippery slope and fumbling a halfway-decent argument, Napolitano begins in earnest around the 2:30 mark.

Napolitano: “Yes, yes, we are moving to the point where it is none of the government’s business who you live with, who you marry, and what your relationship is to them.

Now for libertarians, that’s a good thing.  For those of us who believe in a separation of church and state, that’s a good thing.  You (O’Reilly) think it’s bad.”

For libertarians, the government or churches not upholding a standard of human conduct is good? It is a separation of church and state when social institutions and traditional ideals are made subservient to the whims of the individual? Deconstructing civilization to hedonism will advance liberty?

The institutions of “church” and “state” came about to uphold ideals and provide social constraints.  These organizations and their collectivizing oppression work to keep man from butchering one other long enough to focus on more productive labor.  Yes, statism and other authorities certainly infringe upon one’s liberty to be the special-est snowflake.  That was always the point to society; that was one of the ideas that formed this country in fact, that individuals give up a share of their liberty to enjoy security and comfort.  It does not advance the cause of human liberty to tear down that which secures human liberty, especially when this is done to appease society’s most aberrant members.

As a former superior court judge, Napolitano should know that he is misrepresenting the idea of separation of church and state.  He does this to appeal to people who reduce liberty and human agency to bitcoins and marijuana.  When the judge argues here for “separation,” he does not mean a distinct division and placement of these institutions into particular roles in our society.  The Judge is not arguing for a value structure, a hierarchy that prevents overlap and conflict.  Rather, he argues that both of these institutions and by extension society itself should separate from the human and his desires.  Of course, a government or church separated from the human is meaningless.  That’s the point.

What Napolitano argues for is nihilation, a deconstruction of all society to material that serves the vaunted individual.  Stated bluntly, Napolitano wishes to make explicit what progressives implicitly reduce our society to.  There is a reason feminists have taken a liking to the vulgar libertarians.

While it wins points with the aforementioned potheads and bitcoiners, asking an milquetoast like O’Reilly if the government should tell people who they can live with is a distraction.  The horrible fact here is,  the relationship between man and his ideals have become so ruptured that such a question is even entertained in the first place.  The men who established liberty in this nation would be horrified to learn that liberty is now about discarding church and state for buttcocks and harems.

Contrary to the vulgar libertarian, civilization requires it’s citizens being more than walking alimentary canals.  There is nothing libertarian about the removal of distinction and value in our society.