I encounter certain arguments against my libertarian position, and these arguments come from those quarters that I will call "conservative" though that term has pretty much been stripped of its meaning thanks to Republicans and the Bush administration who resemble the Democratic Party more and more.
My position is that of the minarchist. I believe that what America needs is a minimalist government that functions solely to repulse foreign threats and preserve freedom internally from criminals and terrorist elements. The reason I am not an anarcho-capitalist is because I truly believe that anarchy gives the criminals and the statists the opportunity to pursue their agenda. One only has to look at the demise of the Etruscan civilization as the Romans conquered it or see how the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan in the anarchy following the Soviet withdrawal.
"Anarchy" is given a bad name, but it never really exists. Whenever you get a group of people together, rules and leaders always emerge. Even in the aftermath of the mutiny on the Bounty, the mutineers followed Fletcher Christian. Even criminals will form gangs with rules, a hierarchy, or what have you. This is all empirical observation. Whenever anarcho-capitalists argue for anarchy, they really undercut their position when they say that the free market can provide courts and law enforcement. I call this government.
The reason anarcho-capitalists argue for anarchy is because they seek purity in their argument. They wish to remain 100% in their viewpoint. The problem with this is that it does not take into account the reality that we all see, and that reality is that people are prone to be tyrants. Nietzsche called it the will to power.
Everyone wants to be free. This is a given. The Afghans wanted to be free of the Taliban. The Iraqis wanted to be free of Saddam Hussein. But if you think Sunnis want Shiites to be free and vice versa, think again. People want freedom for themselves but not for anyone else. And this is why tyranny exists and will always exist either as potential or as reality.
Essentially, all justice boils down to the Golden Rule which says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In this rule, we see egoism ("do unto you") and respect for others. In other words, if you play nice, I'll play nice. If we all play nice, then we'll get along, and society will flourish. In fact, this is the only way it can or ever will. This is why we see the Golden Rule in both the Christian West as well as under Confucius in China. It's not a religious thing so much as common sense. And from this rule we see that the rights we extend to others are the same rights we wish returned to us--the rights to life, liberty, and property.
But stupidity exists, and I suspect it always will. As such, there will always be a need for police and the military. Whether this is a product of private contract or what have you is really superfluous. Liberty is preserved by force. Period. This will never change.
What the anarchists are getting at is another truth. Power corrupts. They believe that by eliminating force they will eliminate tyranny. But this will never be. The American experiment of limited power has worked reasonably well all things considered, but there are still glaring failures.
The purpose of government is to secure liberty. Unfortunately, governments can and often do go bad and become tyrannies. In this, we see two poles emerge. The first is absolute freedom. The second is absolute tyranny. Neither one can survive for long. And to borrow from Aristotle, good government is the mean between these two extremes.
Liberty has and always will rely upon good governance and the extent of what this government does will depend upon the amount of respect citizens accord one another. The biggest reason Saddam Hussein was able to rule Iraq was because the people there did not believe in freedom. Like it or not, Hussein was a moderate. Much of the Sunnis and the Shiites would like nothing more than to wipe the other one out of existence which even Saddam would not do. Either tyranny or civil war will emerge, and these people will get exactly what is coming to them, and the US will get exactly what it is coming to us for sticking our noses in their business.
Enlightened people will get an enlightened government. Stupid people get a stupid government. And it doesn't take a rocket scientists to understand the Golden Rule. Most people learn it in kindergarten. They just forget it by the time they get to adulthood.
You can tell the true libertarian because he truly respects your right to be free, but he will kick your fucking ass if you don't return the same respect. A libertarian is a nice person but also a scary person. He is a combination of both force and restraint. He is proud and humble. And if this seems like a contradiction to you, that is because you have forgotten the Golden Rule. As a libertarian, I don't believe in starting shit, but I do believe in finishing it. I won't fuck with you, but if you fuck with me, I will make you regret it. This was the attitude of the early Americans and the pioneers of the West. Don't tread on me.
What is wrong with people is that they either go one of two ways. They either become pacified to the point of becoming victims. Or they become so militant that they become tyrants themselves. But Aristotle's dictum holds true. Virtue lies in the mean. To be the true man of liberty, you give respect for the rights of others, but you also demand respect for yourself.
In my version of libertopia, the government would enforce only the most elementary of laws. This would involve only those things where others are harmed--assault, theft, kidnapping, murder, etc. But these laws would be enforced with vigor. This minimalist government would walk softely but carry one hell of a stick.
Will such a government ever come to pass? Probably not. But I will fight to see that our present government comes as close to it as possible. And as far as allies go, I will join with anyone with which I share the common aim of limiting the scope and reach of our present government whether it is an anarchist or merely a member of NORML.
The market anarchist will argue that by using force and coercion, I am actually advocating tyranny even with minarchy. I agree. Government is an evil, but it is a necessary evil. I'd love to live in a world without guns, violence, war, crime, or Oprah Winfrey. But these things are a permanent part of life. To think otherwise is to be utopian. If anarchy worked, we would have it already.
The problem with reality is that it presents limitations. This is why people try to deny it. For instance, I like to think I have a 25 or 26 hour day when I don't. I routinely bite off more than I can chew and end each day with something left undone. But this doesn't mean that I'm going to stay in bed and admit defeat on these things claiming that I can't get anything done. I do what I can and accept the limits. I don't always hit what I aim at, but I get closer each day.
The same thing applies with government. We'll never be free of this tyranny. But we can get closer each day. I'm all for pushing the limits even if I can't eliminate them.
0 comments:
Post a Comment