Exceptions to the rule


How much liberty does it take to make a libertarian?
When Sunni wrote this amazing piece a couple of weeks ago I couldn't decide if I wanted link to it or not. It's been picked up by Strike the Root, so I really need to take a second look.

At first I was ready to second Jim's endorsement of a debate on the subject, but then the gravity of such an exercise hit me. Have so many ostensibly liberty-loving individuals forgotten the Non-Aggression Principle and the Zero Aggression Principle and their fundamental importance to any philosophy grounded in freedom? Are so many of us mired in concretes and specifics that we're unwilling—or unable—to conceptualize abstracts and general principles that, if we stick by them, should guide our specific actions?

Someone who is pro-freedom can “stand for” many different things, particularly when the question is how to create greater freedom in a world almost completely filled with coercive states of varying sorts. I would hope that's the kind of debate Bovard and Tuma envisioned, but if so, it would lack some punch, focusing again on specifics rather than fundamentals. Rather, I suspect the subject of the debate in mind was deeper—which reveals the pathetic state of the concept of libertarianism. And that reinforces the need for pro-freedom individuals and groups to abandon “libertarian” as an identifier; it's no longer sufficiently clear, nor tied to principle.

I can't deny this strikes a personal note. The only flames I have gotten from libertarians have been because I still believe the war in Iraq is necessary, if only because the alternatives will cost much much more. This war embodies the great flaw in libertarian thought and philosophy, it only works if everyone plays mostly by the rules. That made me realize that libertarianism is reactive when it comes to violence.

When the other guy readies a killing shot, you can't afford to react after the shot is fired.

That is still no justification for a powerful State, rather it's an acknowledgment that right now short of violence, we do not have the means to stop well funded fanatics armed with extremely powerful weapons. Things might have been different if we had insisted on free markets decades ago. As it is, we have a mess with no moral solution, just some that are moderately less immoral than others.

At the same time, there are similar rumblings from online Pagans about the word "Pagan" for much the same reason. It's been fascinating to watch almost the same arguments over definitions come from two such disparate groups.

Can someone be a little bit pro-liberty and still be a libertarian? That's is an interesting question and one I can't really answer.

I find myself relying more and more on the situation. I can't blindly follow conservative thought because of their desire to control personal behavior for the common good. I can't blindly follow modern liberal thought because of their desire to control economic behavior for the common good. And I can't blindly follow libertarian thought because people don't always play by the agreed on rules.

It's these exceptions that make the mess.

We've spent decades educating people that no matter what stand the United States takes, no matter what we proclaim, all that they have to do is make the right kind of noise at the right place with the right witnesses and we will back down. We'll do it because we want to be friends. We'll do it in the name of world peace. We'll do it because we don't want to look like a bully.

We'll do it because our "leaders" are willing to replace our morals and ethics with the demands of the next would-be thug to come down the street, no matter what the cost, all in the name of the greater good. And then when cry when the thugs demand more.

I'm all for open immigration and emigration, but not if opens the border to violent criminals or extends government benefits to non-citizens. That raises another question about government benefits for anyone, which we've already complicated because benefits are not available to everyone. There are always qualifications. That is before we factor in things like cost of living.

Some animals are more equal than others.

I'm all for letting people choose their own faith, but not if their beliefs govern my practice of my chosen faith.

I'm all for charity, but not if it comes at the expense of my taxes and by prolonging dependency.

Should the United States have tolerated tyranny to contain the Soviet Union? It was the quick and dirty solution, it was the easy way, but we are picking up the pieces now.

Does that mean I condone a massive invasion of other Middle Eastern nations? No. I just think that democracy in one or two strategic places will mostly defuse disaster. Maybe.

Does this justify force?

Ah, there is the question. Stars above, I wish I had an answer.

I know this, walking away or backing down will invite attack. Fanatics revel in the "dominate or be dominated" mindset. Reaching an "accommodation" will always be done on their terms instead of mutually beneficial ones.

We are left with force. Not because it is the good way or the right way, but because anything else will cost us freedom. Since force is our only alternative, we are fools if we do not use force decisively.

Will that lead to freedom? I don't know. It could. It could also make things immeasurably worse.

I know that the images of Iraqi women with ink stained thumbs rocked the Muslim world. I know that if people are free to choose, more freedom will usually follow.

But the exceptions worry me.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Fri - December 22, 2006 at 04:24 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved