Skip to main content

The Libertarian Mind: A Short Post on a Big Idea

I remember my initial frustration on discovering Libertarianism was in my inability to see a path from here to there.

I could see how a Libertarian society could work; I just couldn't see how to make it happen starting from welfare-state capitalism.

Then I realized, somewhere along the way, that it all has to do with habits of mind. When we habituate people to standing in line to receive government benefits that they haven't worked for, we teach them to be subservient, grasping, and dependent. Every time we inculcate our children with the idea of blind obedience to authority--

Wear your bicycle helmet or the policeman will get you or you'll fall, crack open your head and become a quadriplegic!

Good children color inside the lines!

Everybody deserves a medal because everybody tried real hard!


--we destroy a tiny bit of personal responsibility and independence.

I've come to believe that we only get so many of those independent brain cells to start out with, so every time we kill one it's an irreplaceable loss.

So here's my politically incorrect solution to passive societal dependence: raise your kids to question authority, to think outside the application form, and to be too damn proud of who they are to kowtow to anyone for a hand-out.

Let them learn that there are worse things than starving.

But try not to get yourself reported to the Division of Family Services for child abuse while you're at it.

Comments

Brian Shields said…
Your dream of a Libertarian society is just that, a dream. Reality is that if you want Libertarianism to take hold, you have to find a way to work with the other two parties to squeeze your ideas in.

As a third party, the most effective way to get what you want is to work as the third leg for government to stabilize on. Republicans go one way, Democrats go the other, Libertarians can bridge the gap, and create true partisanship.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but Libertarians believe in Gay Rights, Environment protection, and safety. All common Democrat themes.

Libertarians believe in core conservative values that republican's haven't quite adhered to lately, and personal responsibility, another republican trait.

How the party can gain marketshare in voters is appealing to all sides. Green, Democrat, Republican, Independent, and Libertarian. by being the place all the outcasts are welcome, you can bind them together under one party and create a viable third leg that must be dealt with.
Brian Shields said…
Thinking that through some more.

http://elections.delaware.gov/archive/elect04/AGP04/AGP04Gen.PDF

2004's registered voters. 43% democrat, 33% republican, 24% other.

Ff you have 24% of the Assembly, you'd have the power to compromise ideals and add libertarian moderation to the mix.
Delaware Watch said…
"Let them learn that there are worse things than starving."

That's a stunner of a statement. While I agree being tortured to death is worse than starvation, I cannot imagine how living in a capitalistic welfare state is worse than starvation.
"Your dream of a Libertarian society is just that, a dream. Reality is that if you want Libertarianism to take hold, you have to find a way to work with the other two parties to squeeze your ideas in.

As a third party, the most effective way to get what you want is to work as the third leg for government to stabilize on. Republicans go one way, Democrats go the other, Libertarians can bridge the gap, and create true partisanship."

Brian,
In many respects I think you are correct; in a few critical areas I think you are dead wrong; see the new post up regarding the Libertarian Party for part of my answer.
Dana,
The short answer is that Gandhi would not have agreed with you.

I meant this as a philosophical statement, to be parsed thus: living consistently with your principles and refusing to compromise them is far more important that the transient material benefits of a government hand-out.

Think of it another way: my students all perceive themselves as needing good grades to get into grad school, get a job, whatever. In pursuit of that end, an increasing number of them are willing to prostitute themselves by cheating their way through college.

I hope I have raised my own children with enough integrity that they would rather fail on their own merits than accept a degree gained by compromising their principles.

I suspect that you and I will find it tough to have this conversation because my perception is that you generally take a much more utilitarian view: i.e., if people's basic needs are not being met, nothing much else matters (I am cartooning somewhat here for brevity's sake).

I disagree with that premise. I think those philosophical principles always matter, especially when a society is deciding which resources to be moved from here to there to satisfy those basic needs.

That's why we're on two opposite ends of the political spectrum.

What sometimes amazes me is how much we agree on, despite that, not how much we differ.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...