I'm generally an impressively apolitical creature--it may be more accurate to say apathopolitical--but, from time to time, I ponder what, exactly, my political views are. (These bouts are often set off by a "fill in your profile" form somewhere.)
I was never in danger of becoming right-wing in any flavor; I value social diversity too highly. So I figured I was left-wing. A Democrat. But it never fully resonated. In fact, it started to chafe when my father, a lifelong registered Republican, answered my question why he wasn't a Democrat. (He occasionally voted for Democrats; I was confused.)
He said helping the poor and needy is a good thing, but it shouldn't be a government task. It should be left to private individuals with the means and the drive to help. Why? Because if you give the government a hundred dollars to feed the poor, ninety-nine of them will be wasted on filing forms and stamping releases and paying staff members, and only one will make it to the food banks. So give your hundred dollars, one at a time, to homeless people, and you accomplish a hundredfold more.
This resonated. Capital R resonated. And so I found myself neither Democrat nor Republican. I guessed I was an Independent. But that's not a principle; it's a catch-all category.
Years later, I was introduced to the term Libertarian. In it, I recognized my father's explanation. I understood why he sometimes voted within his party, sometimes against. And if you ask me today, that's what I'll tell you I am.
Of course, Libertarians argue amongst themselves about what it really means to be one, and there are streams and schools of thought and genres, just as in any complex ideology. I don't claim to be an expert; I don't pretend to have considered every aspect of life to see how Libertarianism fits in. I'm expressing what it means to me, today.
"Libertarians are committed to the belief ... that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others ..."
We are all entitled, as human beings, to live the lives that fulfill us, as long as our actions don't rob others of the same right. Gay marriage is not "forcible interference"; gay bashing is. Believing in God is not "forcible interference"; waging an Inquisition is. Marching in a Ku Klux Klan parade is not; burning crosses on a black man's lawn is. Demonstrating against an abortion clinic is not; bombing one is.
"... that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right ..."
The only laws a government should make are those preserving the right to individual liberty. Morality laws are the antithesis of liberty.
This means that not only are marrying your gay partner, being a devout Christian, and peacably expressing your personal dislike of blacks or abortion not "forcible interference"; laws that prohibit, curtail, or pigeonhole them in any way are. (For the record, I share none of these four qualities.)
"... that the only proper use of coercion is defensive"
Unfortunately, some people do great violence to liberty, and fighting back is sometimes the only way to protect others' right to live freely, without interference. There are circumstances that justify killing; incarceration; even war. Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer embody two such situations.
Communities work best when small
I don't know if this is considered a Libertarian tenet, but I believe that small communities are the only kind that can embody the values above. Over a certain threshhold, you lose the intimacy of knowing your peers; of caring about those around you; of knowing who's a rotten apple and who's a good egg--which I think is far more useful in deciding whether Johnny raped Sally or Sally is telling tall tales than is a parade of evidence and persuasive talk from lawyers.
When communities grow too large, even the minimal government espoused by Libertarian views grows unwieldy, needing paperwork and rules about paperwork, drowning in inefficiency.
Diversity is a source of beauty and meaning
This has been a core belief of mine since I was too little to speak, and it's a large part of why I embrace Libertarian values. It underlies my choice of post title. And it makes this a good place to say, I welcome your thoughts. (Be warned: nastiness and name-calling won't make it past comment moderation. That's not authoritarianism; that's because people who can't make their point without it bore me.)
All quotes are from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
5 hours ago
5 comments:
I'm a big city girl, so I'm not in agreement with the 'small community' claim. For me small communities are associated with less personal freedom, less valuing diversity.
I also disagree with your father about government assistence versus charity. Lets put it this way: Angela's Ashes rung very true for me... So I think there is a place for both.
But the other points I agree with. I've been a typical D'66 voter for years and years: in the middle with a hugh preference for individual freedom and the responsibilities that come with that. Which in effect means that right leaning people think I'm radically leftwing, lefty's assume I am a shallow rightwinger and I end up arguing with everybody...
You seem to imply there is something wrong if a babykilling abortion mill is burned or bomb. Which do you prefer, a pile of bricks or a pile of dead babies? Innocent unborn babies deserve to be protected just as born children deserve to be protected. You would have no problem protecting born children if they were about to be murdered.
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life. http://www.armyofgod.com
You have a great site, Kisa. I just enjoyed reading your blogs.
And there you have diversity, three posts at a time. :)
@DM - I'm not thinking of small Midwestern towns in the 50s so much as modern, enlightened burgs. Also not saying we can't have cities - I'd say a neighborhood in a city qualifies as a small community, which finds itself within, and interacts on a larger scale with, the greater city. I think I'm arguing for decentralization of government and administrative stuff. I think. :)
@ Rev. Spitz - I do understand the passion that underlies your position on abortion (I just don't share it). You are trying to prevent what you see as an abominable evil, and to you, bombing an abortion clinic doctor to death is like shooting Adolf Hitler dead in 1934: what a lot of terrible, terrible tragedy it would have prevented.
This highlights the stickiness of being human and deciding just what "non-interference" and "defense" mean.
@vijayanths - Thanks so much for the positive feedback!
@DM - I haven't seen Angela's Ashes. I think the charity aspect is part of my "small" value - even worthy charities like Plan and the Red Cross have overhead (though much less than a government), and I find myself wanting to give my charity dollars (euros) to small, private initiatives. They don't affect as many people, but the people they do affect are changed forever, not just by food and medicine and school, but by relationships. (In the specific charities I'm thinking of, the founder and what Western staff there is live in the communities they serve.)
I do think the Netherlands does a much better job managing social programs at the government level than America does. But then, Holland has 16 million people, and America 350 million. So maybe scale *is* part of the difference. (Certainly not the only one: the American government could learn a lot about tolerance, respecting diversity, and separation of church and state from its Dutch counterpart.)
Post a Comment