The Sunshine Empire

For our next point-counterpoint segment I wanted to have a high minded argument of political theory.  Two of our featured contributers have spoken about the values of libertarianism.  This evening, we bring you a defense and an indictment of libertarianism. First LibertarianmindedinFL, then Biggus Rickus.

A defense of Libertarianism

Many will say that Libertarianism is not practical or viable. Lets breakdown to start what Libertarianism is according to wikipedia. Libertarianism is a broad collection of political philosophies possessing the common themes of limited government and strong individual liberty. Libertarianism’s ideals, although often varied in detail, typically center on policies in favor of extensive personal liberties (e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom of ownership), rejecting compulsory socialism and communism in favor of allowing private property (whether being held on an individual basis or in collective by a group of individuals), promoting personal responsibility and private charity and opposing welfare statism. Well that kind of breaks things down into a more manageable chunk.

Libertarianism is practical and viable this country was founded by people like Thomas Jefferson who believed in these things. Thomas Jefferson said that “rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others”. The Bill of Rights out lines things like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom of ownership.  We won the west with limited government and strong individual liberty. These ideas and concepts are in our founding documents they were in the hearts and minds of the people who gave up everything and left home for something new, a chance to make something of themselves. There was no government going to take care of these people whether they were going to Plymouth Rock or some place in Montana.

If someone can say that Libertarianism is not practical or viable then the spirit that brought people to this land all those years ago was not practical or viable. The people who fought a Revolution for those freedoms were not practical or viable. The people who settled Texas, where my family is from, were not practical or viable. People did these things so Libertarianism must be practical and viable or we would not be here today.

Finally I end with this question.  I have to ask this when did violence against others become acceptable? Ask yourself do you believe it is OK to use violence or the threat of violence against others? If you are the average person you will answer that violence is wrong.  Support of the state is nothing more than using violence against others because if I don’t pay the tribute (taxes) to them they will eventually use violence against me when they come to arrest me and throw me in a jail cell. Because if you believe that Libertarianism is impractical and not viable then you believe in violence because the state is violence.

-LibertarianmindedinFL

Libertarianism is attractive for anyone who respects individualism, laissez-faire economics, dispersed power structures, property rights, and all of the other freedoms associated with the classical liberalism informed by the enlightenment. As with all ideologies it is myopic and overly simplistic. It commits the fallacy of thinking, as with all ideologies again, that if a little is good, more is better. It makes assumptiions about society and human nature that simply can’t bear scrutiny. Ironically, its most essential flaw is the same as statism’s, that man is basically a decent creature. If he could only be educated properly he would be a positive contributor to society and the nation will become a wonderful place. That they differ vastly in their opinions of what must be taught doesn’t change that similarity. That a purely free economic system and absolute individual freedom would represent perfection is as utopian as the belief that through central planning and education society can be perfected.

As a political movement in the 21st century, libertarianism represents a fringe group where for every true believer there is a kid who just wants to get high legally. 150 years after the rise of statism throughout the west it is an ideology that seems quaint and outdated to most people. That is not to say that its ideas are outdated in any sort of objective way. I agree with many libertarian ideals and consider them timeless. I think they are as important to the conservative side of the aisle as Marxists are to informing liberal policy. That said, they will never, ever be in a position of authority in this country. While I would like to see more influence from this subset on the policies of the currently conservative Republican party, I don’t see it happening. Statism is firmly entrenched, and it’s not going anywhere. People enjoy the comfort of the nanny state, and it can’t be denied that the country has prospered for much of the last century. Such prosperity doesn’t breed revolution.

As for my disagreements with Libertarians, the Devil is in the details, to use a horrible cliché. Capitalism is great, if business power is checked by a functional government. Legalized drugs are fine depending on the drugs in question, assuming their use is highly regulated. The Libertarian stance on abortion runs absolutely counter to mine and goes against their ideas of individual liberty. Where I agree with them in principle is on a balanced budget, property rights, and the removal of government from marriage, though I can imagine instances where my opinion would change with circumstance. Ultimately, it is the absolutism of their stances that I can’t abide. It’s why I’m not a libertarian.

-Biggus Rickus