| In Defense of Libertarianism |
| Check out my friend Joey's diary at: omercies.diaryland.com
In response, a defense of libertarianism: First, let's establish what libertarianism is. Libertarianism, pure and simple, is the view that government should stay out of our lives for the most part. The exception that most libertarians make is that government has a right to prevent the use of physical force and fraud, and to punish them when they are used. That's it. What, then, is "non-libertarianism"? It's simply the idea that government should do more than that. Is there anything in libertarianism that is inherently selfish? No. The only thing "selfish" about it is that it doesn't allow someone to force other people into giving. (Read: it doesn't support the welfare state.) However, nearly all libertarians rely to a degree on the generosity of people when they theorize. For, it is often asked by "non-l"s: "What will happen to the truly desperate if there's no welfare?" Okay, it's ALWAYS asked. Libertarians always reply: 1) There are relatively few who fit this category, and 2) Private charity can take care of them. Personally, I like to add that calling someone "truly desperate" or, more often, "incapable of supporting themselves" is an assault on their human dignity. So, why do so few libertarians participate in private charity? (By the way, I don't know the truth or falsehood of this fact. It's simply an assertion that I'm going to deal with.) Simple, the welfare state makes private charity obsolete. Up 'til now, I've been dealing with "non-lib"s piecemeal. Rather, let's take a different look. I'm going to group "non-lib" viewpoints into two categories (not exhaustive), and deal with them that way. 1) Egalitarianism - this is common on "the left". It asserts that all people are equal, and that any inequality between people should be wiped out. Here's the difficulty of it. Relying on government to equalize creates an inherent inequality. Why? Because some people will be paying money TO the government en toto. Others will be taking money from the government. This is an inequality. In fact, any socialized system of egalitarianism inherently breaks down like this. Situational equality never has existed. And, on top of that, it is logically impossible for it ever TO exist. The best we can shoot for is equal treatment under the law. And libertarianism comes as close to this (actually, closer) than basically any other philosophy. Why? Because libertarian laws make no distinction between different groups. NO ONE is allowed to use physical force or fraud. Period. Egalitarianism, specifically, is wretchedly unequal under the law. For, unless there is a legal distinction between "high earners" and "low earners", there can be no redistribution, and a governmental egalitarianism REQUIRES redistribution. Egalitarianism, in short, is self-defeating as a philosophy. And, on top of that, it is flat-out an assault against reason. 2) Paternalism - this particular view is taken by both sides of the political spectrum. It is the justification for mandatory schooling and for the Drug War. In essense, this view asserts that the people are incapable of making good choices, and therefore the government should make (at least some) choices for them. There's an inherent difficulty in this, however, that I will deal with before I start looking more at the philosophy itself. If people are incapable of making good choices, then who chooses the government officials that can make good ones? It's simply an unanswerable question in a democracy, and basically all other forms of government are much worse. Ultimately, the stupid masses have to choose a leader. But, we have no guarantee that it will be a good one. And, on top of that, if the masses tend to make BAD choices, we'll probably end up with a BAD leader. And would this bad leader make good choices? Of course not. This is a major difficulty with paternalism. A huge question that is generall simply scoffed at, and that I've NEVER heard an answer to. Not even a bad attempt at one. The best I ever got was someone asserting that it was a weak question. Personally, I think she said that because she couldn't answer it. Now, on to the philosophy itself. It to has a couple questions that need answering: 1) How does one know that a choice is really bad before it is made? 2) Why should society pay to keep individuals from making bad choices? The first question is extremely difficult to answer because there is great disagreement as to what good and bad choices are. As a Christian, I believe that not going to church on Sunday is a bad choice. But, as an atheist, someone else would say that believing in God is a bad choice. Now, some would say "We only care about the choices that affect other people". Well, my career affects other people, so should the government choose it for me? The color of my house affects other people, too. Should the Bureau of House Painting make that decision? The fact is, people are not islands, and nearly all our choices have some effect on someone else. The second question also needs answering. It could also read: Why shouldn't people be allowed to make bad choices that they have to pay the consequences for? See, here's why they're the same: society pays enforcement costs. So, rather than the person that makes a bad choice paying for it himself, society is paying for it by paying law enforcement to keep him from doing it in the first place. And paternalistic laws are the hardest to enforce, as many create victimless crimes. 3) Conservatism - Some may object to my labeling here, specifically those that call themselves "conservative". So, let it be understood that I mean "conservative" in the classical sense. In short, that means "resistant to change and seeking to maintain the status quo". Problem: the status quo is unmaintainable. The world is constantly moving, and if human society is not allowed to move with it, it will die out. I don't think anything more need be said. Liberty is the only adaptive philosophy available. Every other philosophy offers a rigid view of the perfect society. Egalitarian: everyone is equal. Paternal: everyone makes good choices. Conservative: things don't change. A libertarian society, though, is very hard to advocate. Why? Because we don't know what it will actually look like. The only thing we can really say is that "it's up to the individuals to shape society as they want it to be shaped and are capable of shaping it without force and fraud." Who knows? Maybe a libertarian society would be a society of primarily small, self-sufficient family farms with little "material wealth". Maybe it would be more like the bustling metropolis. Maybe it would be an intensely religious society. Maybe it would be terribly immoral (by Christian standards). Maybe all of these would exist side by side. We really can't know. And, that, reader, is libertarianism's weakness. |
| Home Philosophy Theology Economics and Finance Politics The Arts Costa Rica 2004 Fun Stuff Links My Blog E-mail Me |
 |