Libertarianism has two major flaws. First of all, the concept of individual autonomy, taken to it’s extreme, results in complete chaos. Libertarians are quick to point out that they are very much in favor of law & order, but really they are not. Because if each individual can choose which laws apply to him, then the very concept of law ceases to have any meaning.
The other flaw is their failure to recognize the need for a common cause to maintain the fabric of society. They think that every single element of this earth can be assigned individual ownership. That includes the land we must walk on, the water we must drink, and even (if it ever becomes possible) the air that we must breathe. Even if they do not allow for outright slavery, to create a situation where one must purchase what is necessary for their basic survival (land, water, air), then de facto slavery will result.
Libertarians do not believe that people should be able to pollute the public rivers, air and ground with impunity - but only because they simply do not believe that public rivers, air and ground should exist. A society can not last for long without some common interests and goals, and I firmly believe that any society that enacted strict libertarian principles for very long would absolutely collapse upon itself.
That being said, capitalism and communism are no better in this regard. Laissez-faire capitalism is what libertarianism really is. Our own capitalist/socialist mix is slightly different, but the capitalist element is strong enough to show us now how it collapses upon itself, with the efficient methods that once gave rise to great wealth now devolving to sheer greed that is causing the economy to collapse.
And as nice as saying you want to take care of the needs of those who can’t take care of themselves is, without specifically defining what differentiates a need from a want and what differentiates unable from unwilling, then laziness becomes incentivized and that system also collapses. This happened in the Soviet Union, and we can see signs of it from our own overburdened welfare policies.
I have never seen any philosophy that adequately explains everything or fails to contradict its own tenets. Most people are desperate to find some cure-all answer. “If we only vote (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc), everything will get better.” I think a long-term view forces one to realize that what is really needed is balance. And whenever the scale gets off balance, we have to shift some weight one way or the other to bring it back into balance.
But life is not as simple as balancing a set of scales. Life is too animated and has too many unpredictable and unknown elements to it. Also, the weights we use are not as steady as the lead balls on the scale. If we add an ounce of Democrat to the scale today, it will grow on it’s own and become heavy enough that we’ll then need to counterbalance with a bit of Republican - until it becomes too heavy also.
It requires constant vigilance, and continual rebalancing from all directions. So, at this point in time, I think that our government is overactive abroad. And I think Ron Paul (who despite his current label IS a pure libertarian) is the only candidate who would scale back our empire a bit. I also think that the government interferes too much in our domestic affairs (both economically and socially). And, while I would not support the complete elimination of such laws (as I suspect Paul might), I think that might be closer to the balance I want than what we currently have.
In short, I could easily support a libertarian candidate (whether this is Paul in a Republican cloak or the actual Libertarian Party candidate) not because he represents the ideal that I want for this country, but simply because that would be the best weight at this time for moving the scale in the direction I think it needs to go in. But if he actually won, I’d very likely vote against him the next time.
11 comments:
Phil -- have you ever considered Reactionary Utopianism? That's my camp. I'll admit that it has its limitations. For one, it won't tell you whom to go and vote for. It's no damn good at all for that purpose.
Anyway, thanks for a very thoughtful post. I wonder if we could discuss a couple of things. You wrote, "... if each individual can choose which laws apply to him, then the very concept of law ceases to have any meaning." I'd like to suggest that every individual has to choose which laws apply to him, at least in the sense of choosing which laws he will comply with in a given situation. I would suggest that because each of us (barring, perhaps, rare mental disorders) is equipped with a conscience, which is to say a sort of "right-wrong" coordinate system by which we assign a moral "location" to any particular action, or inaction. The State then defines another moral coordinate system, which we could call the "legal-illegal" system. Unless the State is your god, there are bound to be differences between the two systems. In a "good" or agreeable society, there's a lot of overlap between them, so that most of what is illegal is also wrong; as that society becomes worse (in your individual view), the disagreements between the systems become wider and more important. It's superficially obvious to say that a society can't work if every man is his own appellate court, sifting apart the "right" and "wrong" laws; however, one could as obviously say that an army can't work if every soldier has to decide for himself which orders to obey, and which to disobey. But every soldier does, in fact, have to decide exactly that; as a number of Germans found out after Global Mistake II, "I vass chust followink orders" won't cut it, ultimately; in the Vietnam Mistake, some guys serving under Lt. Calley made the same discovery. Considering who it is that makes the laws, the idea of those laws being a reliable guide to right and wrong is changing rapidly from "chancy" to "a bad joke." Gambling, for example, is very, very wrong -- unless you're gambling with the state, or with someone whom the state has been bribed to license. Then it's really, really right ("you can't win if you don't play"). It's also fairly difficult to think that what constitutes right, or wrong, changes from time to time, and that such changes are properly based on what politicos have won or lost the last election.
For myself, my efforts at moral behavior are based -- so imperfectly! -- on the teachings of Christianity. The law? That has only practical significance. If something that I want to do isn't wrong, but is illegal, then perhaps I won't do it ... but that decision will be based on the probability of detection and the consequences of conviction. If I think I can do the time, then I'll probably do the "crime."
The other thing I was wondering is: what's your working definition of "libertarian?" I ask in part because I don't have one, myself. I also have the impression that the "official," big-L Libertarian types don't necessarily share a common definition themselves. I think that many, many of them would emphatically exclude Ron Paul.
Phil:
A very insightful and contemplative post.
Never thought of Paul that way...good points.
I guess it can be worse...I could be running, and you know me...
( I'd make sure that nuclear "football" had a BIG "EASY" button on it.)
And the Libs would leave this nation like roaches scattering from under a fridge when the lights come on...!
Subtle?
Me?
About as much as a brick through a plate glass window.
I like the view from where I'm at a LOT better than any view in government.
(and I'm in 'da hood)
What's THAT tell 'ya?
Anyway, have yourself a VERY MERRY (and non-PC) CHRISTMAS.
Stay safe up there!
(I hear the COAL ELVES are out in droves this year...lol).
Phil- Merry Christmas to those in the hood. My aunt and uncle lived on Suttenfied in a second story apartment. In the Winter the reservoir would freeze over for skaters. It was really a nice place to live. Maybe global warming has messed that up. I hardly see anyone skating over there any more. Or maybe you have to be packing heat when you skate.
Evert
Jim,
Your question and comments will take a few days to respond to. I hope you understand. If not, then don't make such profound statements next time. :)
Bob,
I have had a lot of good political discussions lately that have caused me to rethink some things and expand my views a bit. Ron Paul has come up quite a bit.
The most profound realization is that neither of the two "legitimate" candidates that are offered to us in November Obama v. Perry or Gingrich) will come anywhere near the mark of what I think is needed. And also, that both of them are so far off that the differences between them are really inconsiquential. My apologies to Mr. Wetzel for not having headed his words and picked up on this sooner. I sure hope councilman Hines does not read this and decide to comment on my slow mental progress.
Anyway, as I said somewhere else, I think the duopoly will offer us one candidate who will give money to poor people who don't deserve it, while the other will give money to rich people who don't deserve it. Both will borrow that money from China and give you and I the bill. Both will expand our empire abroad, altthough they may differ a bit on exactly which countries to invade. Both will further erode our civil rights, take us further into debt, and use subterfuge to try and hide from us what they are really doing. And in all these respects, I think Paul would be substantially better than anyone else.
Subtle? Did I tell you about the time I decided to negotiate directly with one of the top dogs in my neighborhood? I started out by telling him he'd have to put a bullet through my head to force me from my home. I then went on to tell him that although I knew that he and his four friends (who were standing near by) could easily manage that, I was sure I'd kill at least one or two of them in the process. Notice that I never did actually threaten to kill anyone, just painted a scenario for him to contemplate.
And as far as the view goes, I wonder who stands a better chance at surviving when a tall building crumbles - those at the top, or those at the bottom? Because our country's foundation is very shaky, and that just might be what's coming our way very soon. So perhaps this might be a good time NOT to be enjoying that window view on the top floor.
Evert, Suttenfield is only about a mile long, starting a block before my house (Hanna St.) and extending west to Hoagland. I know a lot of the guys who did business in my neighborhood used to either live or have friends living right there across the street from the park.
I've always liked Reservoir. Climbing the hill pfrovides a great view of the neighborhood and other parts of the city. And they still use it for the annual fishing derby, which always packs in a large crowd of respectable people.
But one day a year of good times can not mask the fact that practically anywhere south of State is now considered the inner city. But things have changed all over, I guess. I know I hardly ever go anywhere without my gun on me these days.
And with that depressing bit of reality thrown at you, I will now wish you and yours a very merry Christmas!
It's about time that people started checking the oil in the political process. Look at you squirming over Paul's 'Libertarian Disease'...still and that's fine. I want it. Where have you been on the Neoconservative agenda, which is not bound to either party or, but a mutant of both, and dangerous as libertarian philosophy ever dreamed of being. The Fed, the MIC, and the system we find ourselves entrenched in is as dangerous as any non-christian, in any cave in which you might find them. A criminal by all labels I am, but my morality is strong.
The number of "pure" libertarians in the US could probably fit inside my house.
Personally, I am fine with using licence plate fees to pay for roads and using taxes to pay for police and fire departments. I don't think 6 year olds should be allowed to buy heroin. And I refuse to defend the right of a business owner to exclude people on the basis of race.
"Pure" libertarians don't show up to LPAC meetings.
Robert,
Of the handful of local Libertarians that I have known, most have said that you are the "purest" among them. That being said, I am glad that you don't advocate allowing children to buy heroin.
I was merely trying to paint the picture of what the libertarian philosophy, taken to it's extreme, might entail. Most likely, if it ever came near approaching this point in practice, I expect large numbers of followers would defect.
And, as I said, no other philosophy that I know of is any less prone to such mistakes. The same greed that built this country is now destroying it. And the kind-hearted nature of social welfare incites one to become lazy.
Anyway, I really am serious about possibly voting for Paul. As much as I disagree with the extremity of his ideas, I think he is the only one who would actually reverse course on the growth of our government - and that is desperately needed before it crushes us all.
I would be curious to know why you think Ron Paul is running as a Republican instead of as a Libertarian.
He is running as a Republican because he was elected to Congress as a Republican.
That's a non-answer, Robert.
The point I am making is that Paul's views seem far more consistent with libertarian philosophy than either the Republican or the Democratic party.
I think Paul doesn't stand a chance at winning the nomination. And I think he would have an equally dismal chance of winning the Presidency as a Libertarian. He is running as a protest, not to win, so I am simply wondering why he doesn't do so under the label that most clearly identifies him.
Post a Comment