People Everywhere Just Wanna Be Free

In a not entirely unsympathetic look at libertarians in Commentary, Kay S. Hymowitz takes such people to task for their radicalism. The criticism, as always, is they go too far with the freedom thing. It's an attack from the right, much of it based on a fear of family breakdown, a central issue for conservatives.

But I'm not sure if Hymowitz's arguments work. Two of her main claims don't hold up to scrutiny, seems to me.

1) Hymowitz brings up Brian Doherty, a friend of mine, who's just written a lively history of libertarianism, when she compares libertarians to the conservative's bete noire, hippies:

the libertarian vision of personal morality--described by Mr. Doherty as "People ought to be free to do whatever the hell they want, mostly, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else"--is not far removed from "if it feels good, do it," the cri de coeur of the Aquarians.

Pardon me, but no matter what you think of these two statements, there's a world of difference between them, a difference so obvious I don't feel the need to explain it.

2) Here's her claim about the yearning for freedom, and other things inborn:

A libertarian, according to Brian Doherty, "has to believe" that "the instincts and abilities for liberty . . . are innate," that we possess "an ability to fend for ourselves in the Randian sense and to form spontaneous orders of fellowship and cooperation in the Hayekian sense." But this view of the relationship between the individual and society is profoundly and demonstrably false, especially when applied to the family. Children do not come into the world respecting private property.

They don't? Kids have trouble learning the word mine!?

I find Hymowitz's claim quite ironic. The Right regularly attack the Left for its wish to create a "new man." The Right insists, no matter how much society may force its views on people, there are basic beliefs and urges that no one can get around. So why can't they believe that people have at least some instincts regarding both freedom and cooperation?

Everyone understands that socialization plays a part, but why is it only when the Right's shibboleths are threatened do they suddenly start emphasizing how malleable humans are?