March 1, 2005
The Ideals Behind my Incoherent Ramblings
I am often guilty of focusing far too much on policy and politics, rather than the true war of ideas. Part of this is my engineering background. I see a problem with something and propose fixes for the problem, rather than tossing the whole damn thing out a window. Which is sometimes tough to reconcile with libertarianism, because I’m trying to fix a government that I think is inherently flawed and shouldn’t exist in the first place. But hopeless meddler that I am, if it’s going to exist I at least want it firing on all cylinders.
Every once in a while, I come across someone who coherently expresses the fundamental ideals behind libertarianism, the principals animating most of my methods for fixing government. Chris at The AnarchAngel has done just that with his post The Politics of Liberty (complete with audio!). He lays out, in simple terms, the proper role of government, and why it is immoral for government to exceed these bounds.
The key point that reminded my why I started a blog in the first place is this:
Here’s the thing; Societies are made up of many many individuals, and by changing minds one person at a time, we CAN grow back into a society of individuals. If I change just one mind, and in doing so inspire that person to change other minds, eventually we will can free ourselves from the coercive limitation of human liberty.
This is my goal, and it is far to important to ever give it up.
Amen to that. Most libertarians believe that given time and exposure to our arguments, it is likely that people will come over to our side. These arguments are not even given lip service in modern politics, so I only hope that time and effort be all of us as individuals, will bring benefits and help to enact a true society of liberty.
9 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Thanks Warbs, I’m glad you liked it.
Oh and I fixed some of the typos and grammar errors. I’ve been up since 8 am yesterday (writing the piece since about 9pm last night)and I got pretty sloppy there for a while.
I’m drawn to the libertarian ideals to some degree. Where we part company is when they argue liaise faire to the point that it borders on anarchy. No amount of property rights justifies my neighbor raise 100 hogs in his back yard. Some regulation is required in a civilized society.
The degree of control our current government has imposed however is way too repressive and won’t allow for reasonable liberty. It’s time we changed the status quo, especially in the judiciary. That’s why we cannot allow Harry Reid to filibuster President Bush’s judicial nominees to death. The argument that we should tread lightly about changing the cloture rules because the shoe might be on the other foot some day just doesn’t hold water. Does anyone doubt, if the situation was reversed, and we had a president Kerry and a Democrat majority in both houses, that Harry Reid would hesitate to change the rules –to get Kerry’s judges approved? He’d change the rule in a New York minute!
Remay,
The libertarians have an answer to this one.
If you move next door to a homeowner who is raising 100 hogs in his backyard, you have assumed when moving that this behavior exists, and the hogs stay. If you purchase a home in an area where hogs are not raised, the landowner has no right to then change the situation and subject you to the smells and noise of raising 100 hogs.
I do completely agree that the judiciary needs some serious upheaval. We cannot continue to allow a judiciary that woefully ignores the constitution and its intent, and allows the federal government to assume powers well beyond those granted in the Constitution. We need to hold firm on the appointment of strict constructionists. It would certainly result in a more libertarian federal government.
Brad,
You’re right about Chris’ post; I was moved to weigh in on it myself.
Remay,
There’s a problem with government regulation: persons or groups will always seek to avail themselves of the inordinate force of government to compell others act or cease to act in a particular fashion.
As Brad articulated, the government should merely neutrally arbitrate the disputes/agreements among citizens, thereby protecting the liberty of all.
Actually, Remay, property rights would give you legal grounds to fight a neighbor who was raising 100 hogs in his back yard, since his actions would be a nuisance to anyone on your property, affecting both your use and the value of the property.
It’s important to draw the line here between libertarianism and anarchism. In libertarianism, each person is responsible for respecting the rights (life, liberty, and property) of those around him. In anarchism, a person can do whatever he wants without regard to those around him.
Quincy,
I can’t necessarily agree with you here. Anarchists believe that a society can exist where people contract out for security/police type matters, as opposed to having them provided by government. They believe simply that a private, non-governmental system can work as well as a governmental system of protecting rights.
Personally, I’m not inclined to agree, but I have heard some good arguments from their side.
In anarchism, a person can try to do whatever he wants without regard to those around him.
…and I see you started your blog for the same reason I did.
I’m going to link to you, bro.
jomama,
Link reciprocated… Thanks.