America was founded on libertarian principles. This tradition empowered the rise of America. It inspired the creativity and entrepreneurial energy of our people to such an extent that after WWII our culture, economy, military and society bestrode the world like a mighty colossus. Even in modern America, the more libertarian Texas is gaining population at nearly the same rate that the more authoritarian Massachusetts and California hemorrhage tax slaves from their welfare states.
Yet, despite the epic win powered by this libertarian ideology in America, the Libertarian Party has yet to paint the electoral map gold, ban the Fed, legalize Oaxacan ditch weed, or privatize or power down any of the myriad functions that our Federal Government (in my humble opinion) has no business exerting dominion over.
In today’s blog post, I aim to clarify to my loyal readers— all five or six of you—why Ron Paul (or any other potential Libertarian Party Presidential candidate) won’t come close to reaching Mount Rushmore without a ticket and a mode of transportation. They fail to grasp the fundamental concept of consequentialism.
Consequentialism involves taking responsibility for the outcomes of any action you choose to undertake. It establishes a necessary, limiting, and specific boundary on the extent of individual freedom. While most of us, including devoted followers of Ron Paul, understand this concept on an individual level, some individuals fail to comprehend it and find themselves incarcerated or deceased for various reasons. Absolute freedom may seem exhilarating, but it’s ultimately unfeasible, much like the relationship many people had with the person who took their virginity—a thrilling ride that inevitably comes to an end.
What modern Libertarians fail to grasp is that the same principle applies to societies. Allowing neighbors complete freedom may seem appealing until a dangerous individual like David Berkowitz moves in and threatens your safety. Morality must be regulated.
While it may seem liberating to permit a woman to terminate her pregnancy, this perception overlooks the suffering of fetuses subjected to such procedures. Similarly, dealing with elderly relatives can be taxing, but it’s more humane to address these issues with compassion rather than advocating for their demise. Allowing unchecked freedom ultimately prioritizes individual autonomy over the sanctity of human life.
While allowing market forces to determine distribution is effective for consumer goods like “Tickle Me Elmo Dolls,” it requires more careful consideration when it comes to matters like pornography and prostitution near schools. Societal values and standards of decency must be upheld. While I can easily ignore inappropriate Super Bowl commercials, I cannot protect my children from a culture that inundates them with explicit content.
Although I admire many aspects of libertarian philosophy, I recognize the dangers of granting the federal government excessive power, as seen with legislation like the USA Patriot Act. Ron Paul’s concerns about the Department of Homeland Security and the erosion of civil liberties are valid. Surrendering freedoms in response to temporary fears often results in permanent losses of liberty.
That all being explained; there also has to be a counter-test to determine how far individual and societal rights can actually be extended before we’ve given ourselves enough rope to auto-asphyxiate. Late, Great USA Patriot Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. perhaps nailed the proper design for that filter better than anyone alive in America today. “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” (HT:Askville.com
The proposed standard would undoubtedly challenge numerous rights that are perceived as hateful and destructive by many. For instance, the notion of free, tax-payer funded abortions would certainly evoke strong opposition from a significant portion of the population. Even the concept of free abortions funded by Planned Parenthood would likely provoke objections from at least some individuals.
Similarly, the implementation of a single-payer healthcare system, offering free and guaranteed government healthcare to all citizens, would present significant challenges. This could potentially lead to issues of coercion, particularly in terms of the finite supply of qualified physicians. In essence, imposing limitations on the rights and freedoms that an unjust governing body can promise to a numerical majority of registered voters may be crucial for preserving individual liberties in the United States of America.
This is where the Libertarian position that we can have individual freedom, athwart all the silly, reactionary barriers of decency, culture and modest restraint, runs into the brick wall of contradiction. You really can’t have it all without paying for it. Nobody ever makes it into heaven without lying down for a dirt nap first. The freedoms Libertarians tell me I should just be able to take for granted often times, inconvenience, offend, harm or even partially enslave the people around me.
For a brief period of time I thought about being a Libertarian, instead of a Republican. Having to share an organization with too many Lindsey Grahams, Lincoln Chaffees and Arlen Specters can do that to anyone who has morals. However, because of those morals, I could not believe what the modern Libertarians believe. It is because many other Americans, agree with and share at least some of those morals, that President Ron Paul will never amount to anything more than an obnoxious meme on the Internet Tubes. To the extent that Libertarians are libertine, they are also not faithfully libertarian. Fight for freedom as a Republican instead.
