Libertarians face a similar paradox. On the one hand they see democracy has the most legitimate form of power, but they hold that power, in order to be legitimate must be limited to certain functions, i.e. the parameters laid out in the constitution. They are having a debate about this right now over at Cato-Unbound.

The problem is that, like the Marxists, libertarians don’t have an explanation for how power limits itself, or how a people limit the power of the government IF the majority of citizens don’t want said limitations. If majoritarianism is the only pseudo-legitimate way for government to exercise its power, what are the circumstances that allow for the limitations of that majority?

It cannot be that the majority limits itself. While this would be ideal, it is entirely idealistic. A strong judicial review process, favored by Randy Barnett, can only really be a effective to the extent that the majority legitimizes them through either (a) democratic appointment or (b) the election of an executive willing to enforce the court opinions.

Explanation about the proper limitations of power ignore the nature of power, which is self-serving. It would seem that either we are (a) stuck with majoritarianism and have to find a way to deal with it, or (b) we have to advocate non-democratic, and therefore potentially violent alternatives.

Since (b) is completely unacceptable, at least in the absence of total despotism, it seems we are stuck embracing majoritarianism at some level, even though this cuts against the very core of the libertarian disposition. I hope that I am wrong, but libertarians have yet to convince me otherwise.

This is a legitimate concern. Indeed, the biggest mistake the right has made, rhetorically speaking, has been to dismiss it.

The libertarian connection may be the underlying impulse. A major assumption beneath this care for the environment is that “nature” has a “natural” way about it and that our activity interferes with it. That is, if mankind were not here, the earth would be a different place. It’s not that it would be a better place, necessarily, just a natural one.

It is interesting that these same people don’t seem to believe the same about human society. They don’t believe humans have a “natural” way of being. Human society to many environmentalists is, it seems, completely malleable, shapeless awaiting some divinity to bestow itself.

But the libertarian (not all of course) sees peaceful human interaction as “natural.” Government, beyond it’s limited functions, does for society what mankind does to nature. It abuses it. Government’s nature is to serve itself with little concern for the fulfillment of mankind’s “naturalness.”

Government sees human society as something to control and the ends at which that control is aimed are not those of society as a whole. The ends of control are necessarily those of the government itself. Indeed that government may take many forms, democracy being the most fair and equitable. But even in democracies, the use of power is still an adulteration of human naturalness; it’s merely the will of a majority. And majorities can be wrong.

To be clear, I’m not saying that human nature is a static and predictable thing. I’m not asserting man is naturally greedy or even that man is naturally good. Only that what man is, is only for men to discover, not governments. (I’m using “man” in the all inclusive sense here). To interfere too much is to act with the arrogance that one man, or group of men, or elected men, can say conclusively of what man is or is not capable.

This is not to say there should be no government at all. Just as mankind has no choice but to eat the fruits of the earth in order to survive, so he must have some governing systems to maintain the freedom that enables civil interaction. But if our approach to the physical environment should be a cautious one that aims at minimizing our impact on the natural environment, our approach to governance should be similarly minimal seeking to have as little impact on the governed as possible.

So is there a libertarian impulse buried somewhere in environmentalism? God, let’s hope so.

But when I say libertarianism is dead, I meant it. As a movement. As a philosophy. As a political program, it is just that, dead. Does this mean there is no longer justification to defend economic and political liberty? Of course not. What it does mean, is that if liberty is going to thrive it must be rethought and re-packaged.

The recent success of the Ron Paul organization led many, myself included, to believe that liberty was finally getting its due. It is always darkest just before light, right? and Ron Paul’s popularity was the glimmer of that light cutting through the madness of presidential politics.

But Dr. No’s movement was fundamentally a negative one. It’s organizing principles, though singularly effective, was one of opposition. And as such, it could never hope to guide a nation to its future.

Indeed, in a microcosm, Paul’s failure is emblematic of the entire movement. It has always been a negative movement. It has been a movement that sought to oppose, to limit, to subvert, and to destroy (i.e. destroy bureaucracy). While, it might have on occasion achieved remarkable successes (Ronald Reagan comes to mind), it’s intrinsic negativity with perfect symmetry confines, limits, and subverts its own possibility.

Libertarianism is an out-growth of the predominant political philosophy of the 19th and 20th century: Liberalism. Some libertarians even prefer calling themselves “classical” liberals, distinguishing themselves both from the more radical and often paranoid elements in libertarianism and from the pathetic disaster of what is called “modern” liberalism.

But the distinction between modern and classical liberalism has always been hazy, defined not by substantial philosophical differences but by simple degrees. Both libertarians and liberals sought to achieve political pluralism. That is, the aimed at finding a political structure in which widely divergent cultures and religions could peacefully coexist.

For the classical liberals this framework had to be an austere one, devoted only to those basic human commonalities that would unite the Muslim and the secular humanist in common cause. This has typically been interpreted as national defense, certain basic public services, the rule of law and the defense of private property and economic rights.

For the modern liberal, such an austere framework is destined to fail because it ignores basic human needs like food, shelter, and “welfare” in general. Despite the effort on the part of libertarians to prove the contrary, libertarians and liberals are very much united in their belief that if the material needs of humanity are tended to, cultural differences will cease to divide society.

It is important here to note that there are some libertarians who do not view the philosophy in such materialistic terms (Objectivism, for instance), but that for the most part these libertarians are a marginal part of the movement.

In some cases, this might materialistic premise has some basis in experience. As the nations of western Europe have become more economically advanced, they have lost (to some degree) the desire to slaughter one another.

But in the United States this thesis has proved problematic. At the height of the economic boom in the 1990s, culture was very much at the forefront of political discourse. While the culture as a whole has in some ways become more liberal, it has in other ways remained remarkably prudish. And the heightened rhetoric over immigration is evidence that in the absence of economic struggles, cultural issues have taken an even more prominent position.

These cultural debates have put libertarians in a precarious position. While they can staunchly oppose government intervention into cultural issues, they have virtually nothing to say about the issues themselves. And while libertarians often embrace this vacancy, boast about it even, this failure of the philosophy to be sufficient “comprehensive” in its approach as all but guaranteed its irrelevance moving forward.

Libertarians are prone to making a distinction between political and personal philosophy. To their credit, it is the sheer optimism about the possibilities of human nature that allow them to make this distinction.

But the vast majority of people are not commonly aware of such a distinction. They do not cognitively experience a difference between the questions “What should be done” and “what should government do.” While public opinion does not itself invalidate the libertarian position, the inability of 30 years of libertarian “outreach” to significantly change the way people think about the public and private domains has to say SOMETHING about the libertarian approach.

The question is what exactly does it say? And what should we do about it. I will address these questions in future essays.