I've been experiencing that phenomenon where as soon as you learn something new, you see it everywhere. Such has been the case with libertarianism. I've recently been through (or rather begun) a crash course in this political ideology which is mostly diametrically opposed to mine. Yet, unlike some neoconservative arguments, a lot of what my libertarian gurus have to say makes sense.
Gasp. This has caused some ideological soul-searching on my part. The timing is not coincidental, it never is. The ten year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war has made us squeamish. Obama is beginning his second term, and we're all noticing he's rather drone happy. The Republicans are trying some re-branding. We're looking at Syria and not sure what to say. Iran is... still out there, and well, Israel remains our BFF. Meanwhile, it's getting harder for us to verbalize our stake in the affairs of others, and we're running out of money to run out of. This perfect storm of current events has me thinking about America's role in the world. How can we stay safe? How can we benefit ourselves? How can we benefit others? This last question is optional or irrelevant according to non-interventionists. I, however, maintain that immense resources, capability, and relative wealth should be put to good use when necessary. Humanitarian efforts should not be a byproduct of the reigning political ideology of the time but a fundamental human endeavor. Just saying.
But I get it. If government would just shrink to communal/regional entities we could keep our tax money. We could let people do as they please as long as it doesn't harm others, and we could let the free market perform as it should. Left to our own devices, we as citizens and consumers would be free to create what we need and come together as individuals to solve our own problems, locally. Assuming everyone really does come together to look after one another (and this is a big assumption considering I don't currently know any of my neighbors), this sounds very nice. Free individuals addressing problems they deem worthy of collective solutions can be effective and even loving. The reverse is also true, and this scares me. What happens when everyone retreats to their own gun-laden farms and everyone fends for themselves. Are we really only as good as survival of the fittest? I'm not the first nor the last to respond this way to the libertarian premise. I should hope that should the federal government dissolve into the Washington granite in which it's housed, that private, innovate solutions would spring up to the benefit of all. Still, I'm unconvinced.
I'm curious however, isn't government an expression of its people? That eventually in our absolute liberty, we would decide to establish a few rules, maybe elect a leader or two. Maybe we would want to engage with other countries, and so we'd send some representatives. Aren't we just on an endpoint of a free society that has built up over the years? Has it gotten beyond us; is that what we're asking? I suppose the test is if popular will conflicts with legislation. We see that with issues such as drugs and gay marriage. But issues such as these are raised in public debate and eventually corrected. The civil rights movement enjoyed a quicker pace thanks to government. The much stickier issue is how to influence the policies that aren't up to the public. What about foreign and security policy? What's the popular will tell us about that?
Libertarian or not, liberal or not, I think now is a great time to have a sober look in the mirror. If our national security strategy is costing us too much blood and too much treasure, that's a problem. We need to be okay with entertaining debate that's previously been taboo. We love our military members, but it's okay to question military involvement in places we can't connect to our national interests (not to mention thinking seriously about defense budget cuts). We think Israel is pretty great, but we can suggest policies they don't like if we think it will help. We can ask our president to please write down his drone policy somewhere. We've gotten ahead of ourselves. I think that's the conclusion we come to when looking at our global reach.
I'm not about to shake my liberal ways just yet. I don't object to a society who establishes rules and agrees to sacrifice for one another, even if mandated. I do however, think we can do a better job at being the most reasoned, the most strategic, and the most charitable state in the room, and not just the most powerful. My political leanings are under review to be sure, but as of now I don't object to the job of the state, just its performance.
Gasp. This has caused some ideological soul-searching on my part. The timing is not coincidental, it never is. The ten year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war has made us squeamish. Obama is beginning his second term, and we're all noticing he's rather drone happy. The Republicans are trying some re-branding. We're looking at Syria and not sure what to say. Iran is... still out there, and well, Israel remains our BFF. Meanwhile, it's getting harder for us to verbalize our stake in the affairs of others, and we're running out of money to run out of. This perfect storm of current events has me thinking about America's role in the world. How can we stay safe? How can we benefit ourselves? How can we benefit others? This last question is optional or irrelevant according to non-interventionists. I, however, maintain that immense resources, capability, and relative wealth should be put to good use when necessary. Humanitarian efforts should not be a byproduct of the reigning political ideology of the time but a fundamental human endeavor. Just saying.
But I get it. If government would just shrink to communal/regional entities we could keep our tax money. We could let people do as they please as long as it doesn't harm others, and we could let the free market perform as it should. Left to our own devices, we as citizens and consumers would be free to create what we need and come together as individuals to solve our own problems, locally. Assuming everyone really does come together to look after one another (and this is a big assumption considering I don't currently know any of my neighbors), this sounds very nice. Free individuals addressing problems they deem worthy of collective solutions can be effective and even loving. The reverse is also true, and this scares me. What happens when everyone retreats to their own gun-laden farms and everyone fends for themselves. Are we really only as good as survival of the fittest? I'm not the first nor the last to respond this way to the libertarian premise. I should hope that should the federal government dissolve into the Washington granite in which it's housed, that private, innovate solutions would spring up to the benefit of all. Still, I'm unconvinced.
I'm curious however, isn't government an expression of its people? That eventually in our absolute liberty, we would decide to establish a few rules, maybe elect a leader or two. Maybe we would want to engage with other countries, and so we'd send some representatives. Aren't we just on an endpoint of a free society that has built up over the years? Has it gotten beyond us; is that what we're asking? I suppose the test is if popular will conflicts with legislation. We see that with issues such as drugs and gay marriage. But issues such as these are raised in public debate and eventually corrected. The civil rights movement enjoyed a quicker pace thanks to government. The much stickier issue is how to influence the policies that aren't up to the public. What about foreign and security policy? What's the popular will tell us about that?
Libertarian or not, liberal or not, I think now is a great time to have a sober look in the mirror. If our national security strategy is costing us too much blood and too much treasure, that's a problem. We need to be okay with entertaining debate that's previously been taboo. We love our military members, but it's okay to question military involvement in places we can't connect to our national interests (not to mention thinking seriously about defense budget cuts). We think Israel is pretty great, but we can suggest policies they don't like if we think it will help. We can ask our president to please write down his drone policy somewhere. We've gotten ahead of ourselves. I think that's the conclusion we come to when looking at our global reach.
I'm not about to shake my liberal ways just yet. I don't object to a society who establishes rules and agrees to sacrifice for one another, even if mandated. I do however, think we can do a better job at being the most reasoned, the most strategic, and the most charitable state in the room, and not just the most powerful. My political leanings are under review to be sure, but as of now I don't object to the job of the state, just its performance.
"Assuming everyone really does come together to look after one another (and this is a big assumption considering I don't currently know any of my neighbors), this sounds very nice. Free individuals addressing problems they deem worthy of collective solutions can be effective and even loving. The reverse is also true, and this scares me. What happens when everyone retreats to their own gun-laden farms and everyone fends for themselves. Are we really only as good as survival of the fittest? I'm not the first nor the last to respond this way to the libertarian premise. I should hope that should the federal government dissolve into the Washington granite in which it's housed, that private, innovate solutions would spring up to the benefit of all. Still, I'm unconvinced."
ReplyDeleteMurray Rothbard responds to this “common charge” against free societies:
“A common charge against the free-market society is that it institutes "the law of the jungle," of "dog eat dog," that it spurns human cooperation for competition, and that it exalts material success as opposed to spiritual values, philosophy, or leisure activities. On the contrary, the jungle is precisely a society of coercion, theft, and parasitism, a society that demolishes lives and living standards. The peaceful market competition of producers and suppliers is a profoundly cooperative process in which everyone benefits, and where everyone's living standard flourishes (compared to what it would be in an unfree society). And the undoubted material success of free societies provides the general affluence that permits us to enjoy an enormous amount of leisure as compared to other societies, and to pursue matters of the spirit. It is the coercive countries with little or no market activity, notably under communism, where the grind of daily existence not only impoverishes people materially, but deadens their spirit.”
A simple question in response to your “what happens when” scenario/assumption is: what incentive would people have to isolate themselves on their gun-laden farms? Where does this idea come from? The market only provides options. The state restricts them through tariffs and meaningless regulation. If the state were to become an option for us, that is, it would offer the services it already provides but for a market price and not by a monopoly-imposed force, then the market would be flooded with options, competition, and the quality of these services would improve exponentially. A kind of gold rush effect would occur.
Thank you for your comments. My fear stems from the very rhetoric of libertarianism. My perception of a libertarian society as isolationist, defensive, and hunkered down is reflected in the way libertarians present their arguments. Everything reflects a desire to defend themselves. None of it seems to be about better connecting with/helping others. I've argued this point many times with Republicans and libertarians alike. When your platform is defense and not, for the lack of a better world, love, it is hard for me to trust that you'll care about anyone's welfare once you are finally free. I understand that this reflects an enormous lack of confidence in fellow man, but the words, the way in which libertarian arguments are presented leave me with no choice but to be nervous.
DeleteI understand where you're coming from. It all sounded hostile to me as well when I first started reading about it.
DeleteThe so-called defensive war or "isolationist" signals you're picking up on aren't directed at society or fellow human beings/individuals--they're directed at the state. In other words, you could say that libertarians/anarcho-capitalists/paleoconservatives seek only to "isolate" or remove themselves from the monopoly of forced rule that is the state. So yes, there is a defensive posture, but for good reason. However, one shouldn't confuse where the energy is directed.
If anything, the energy is pro-society, pro-cooperation, pro- rule of law, and most importantly-- anti-aggression.
"Maybe we would want to engage with other countries, and so we'd send some representatives."
ReplyDeleteInternational trade makes up 25% of the world's GDP. I'd say that's pretty stinkin' engaged.
But consider:
Perhaps individuals living within the magical, invisible lines (arbitrarily defined borders) bestowed on us by the great monopoly of force that is the USG, don't think too much of Hillary Clinton and her murderous "we came, we saw, he died" ways.
Maybe she isn't someone who represents me, or the people who live in my community, or people who live in my region of the US.
Maybe the best way for Americans to represent themselves is through the only real ballot box that exists--their dollars/gold/bitcoins what have you...
What if collective foreign representation is a scam if you take the simple premise to its logical conclusion?
What if by traveling to places, and seeing them for myself and purchasing goods, or starting a company that imports and distributes knick knacks, that my goodwill reflects on me and maybe others from the community of which I come?
What if I could be my own ambassador and not depend on one centralized, power grabbing monopoly to start wars for me and pressure foreign governments to do things to foreign people in my name?
What if the budget for international management bribes (foreign aid) didn't exist and the envy that's created from the money stolen from poor people in this country and given to rich people (the states) in foreign countries, wasn't happening?
What if we actually read and understood the words in George Washington's Farewell Address?
"'So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.'"