Twice, in the first two portions of this article, libertarians were described as humble and the parties in power as arrogant. The easiest way to understand why libertarians are more humble than their American political adversaries is at the very heart of the libertarian philosophy. One of the most basic tenets of the libertarian point of view is that leaders are not wise enough to tell the rest of us what to do or think. I am no better than you and you are no better than I. We should be equal in the eyes of the law regardless of race, creed, gender, opinion or anything else. If we deny our federal government the ability to write legislation which labels citizens we would not have, or had, legislation which supported racism or sexism. We also wouldn’t allow Washington to tell us who we can or can’t marry. The subscription to the libertarian point of view requires one to admit that their opinion is no more important than their neighbors’. This admission is empowering because once a person removes their biases against those neighbors, they can begin to see past the issues used to divide us and focus on our common goals. That is the essence of our federal government to the libertarian. Washington should stop focusing on issues that divide us and leave those to the States. Washington should be a place where politics brings us as together as possible. Congress is a place to argue, debate and generally disagree with each other through our representatives. Instead of sending our officials to Washington in order to fight over social topics that can never be solved, let us send our politicians to Washington to fight over the best foreign policy method. Let us send them to fight over sending troops to roughly 65-70% of the nations on earth! Let them fight over how best to address immigration finally! By removing the issues behind which they hide, such as regulating any action possible by both person and business, we can force them to actually address the needs of the nation instead of the wants of their constituents. The libertarians are not afraid of this scenario. Both Republicans and Democrats avoid the true issues and have done so for decades. The libertarian wants to remove the ability of the government to print money through its incestuous relationship with the Federal Reserve. The ability to rob the people by devaluing currency in order to fund wars and social programs is beyond atrocious. Does no one remember the crisis in Germany less than a century ago? Should we trust our government officials when they laugh off such a scenario out of pure ego and self-interest? The arrogance of the left and right shown in their constant efforts to either take care and protect us or make our decisions for us is perpetrated with the permission of the populace. We vote them in. We believe in their benevolence through our active choice of ignorance. Vote in a libertarian and you will see that they value an opposing opinion equally when it comes to legislation. This is not the description of a weak person; just the opposite. Someone who is comfortable with not being considered “right” is capable of far more when representing a population that can’t all agree with him or her. They don’t have to pander to one side of a debate. The libertarian politician can be strong willed because they constantly respect the limits of their power and opinion.
It is quite possible that one could describe a libertarian as more concerned with the future of the individual rather than the country. However, if a country establishes a rule of law protecting the greatest amount of personal liberty possible, a libertarian would certainly do everything possible to protect both individual and country. No political philosophy is perfect to be sure. In point of fact, it is doubtful that any one philosophy is even possible. Socialism would be grand if people were motivated by patriotism as much as personal gain. As long as competition produces better economic results than nationalism, socialist nations will come in a distant second to the ingenuity of the free market society. Communism might be desirable if one could trust the government to act as a benevolent and omnipotent God. Capitalism would work if a society could prevent the collusion of government and business. The track record of pollution (i.e. the government’s failure to protect the citizen from the abuses caused by the motivation of business, namely profit) is enough to show America failed in this regard. A libertarian’s utopian society can’t exist either. People are not perfect and we always fall short when attempting to avoid judging each other. Humans always form into groups thereby creating the support for labels. Labels strip away liberty once they leak into legislation or perhaps even merely a public’s lexicon. People always want to be “right” and we can’t always “agree to disagree”. These are some of the issues with the libertarian school of thought. However, I would rather fall short of the goal when aiming at individual liberty than to fail in an effort to control industry and society as both our parties attempt to do. To fail in the desire to get out of your way seems much more honorable and less harmful than to fail in the attempt at engineering your future. Perhaps the most glaring weakness of the libertarian point of view is that it doesn’t promise anything except liberty. Without the time to explain how true liberty can break the cycle of generational welfare, how could a libertarian hope to convince those voters to live without the programs they currently rely on? Without the attention of the farmers, how can a libertarian convince them that farming subsidies are actually hurting their profitability? I can’t help but mention that Ron Paul did just that in Texas. It is possible. The issues of legislating beyond the constitution and giving gifts paid for through taxes are entwined beyond separation. On the one hand, we should not allow Washington to legislate beyond the scope provided by the constitution but on the other hand how many are willing to give up that ability at the cost of personal gains through such legislating? Not only that, how many people would lose their civil servant job if we abolished needless programs such as the department of education? The abolishment of useless and counterproductive bureaucracies such as the dept. of education lie at the heart of the libertarian point of view, yet they can’t be simply stricken without giving thought to the consequences. When facing voters in an election, the libertarian is challenged with such difficulties under the guise that the current tax dollars are actually contributing to the improvement of such fields as education. Such a claim is so far from the truth, yet the fear that our all mighty federal government might not provide education for our children is enough to scare people away from actually thinking for themselves in depth about the topic. The lack of local control over our schools is equal to the lack of parental involvement. I’m not saying we don’t have good parents out there. I’m saying they are the exception, not the rule. In fact, I am currently “facebook friends” with several people with whom I politically disagree, yet am constantly impressed at how much time and effort they give to their children and schools. Obviously they are people of character. Why should we desire a political system which chooses winners and losers through social engineering instead of one which respects the positive attributes of everyone? Are we so sophomoric in our desire for “winning” that we lose the respect of those we debated with in the first place? The libertarian message is one of respect and humility; unfortunately, it is a message drowned out by the promises of gifts and caretaking offered by the establishment.
Coming in Part IV
The reformation of Washington
Why anyone can be a libertarian (unlike Dems or Reps)
And MAYBE....a conclusion :)
No comments:
Post a Comment