There are many things which no one seems to oppose. We're all for peace, correct? Education? The environment? Observing the Golden Rule, perhaps, if such references are not too religious? Yet so often these claims ring hollow. They must, you see: for peace and education are just words. By themselves, they really mean nothing.
It is critically important that we bring up and discuss the important questions which must follow these words if our actions are to mean anything; indeed, if the words themselves are at some point to be of value, of good use. WE must ask: peace under what circumstances? Peace for whom? Because of course peace in the sense of a lack of war was very useful for Hitler and Stalin yet was a rather poor mantra for Austria or the Communist Bloc.
Simply put, the next time someone asks you if you are for peace, or education, or the environment, ask them relevant questions before you answer. Ask them peace under what conditions? Education to what purpose and in what manner? The environment for whom and how? Before these issues are addressed we have nothing but a shallow and insipid pool of vacuous semi-thought. Yet afterwards, we may actually accomplish things.
Showing posts with label justice libertarian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice libertarian. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Sunday, January 8, 2012
The Fork in the Road
"Ron, I'm a conservative. I'm not a libertarian. I believe in some government."
- Rick Santorum, from the GOP debate 1.7.2012
As though the direction of such a quote isn't obvious enough to anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of current American politics, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum shot that barb towards the decidedly libertarian Ron Paul. It perhaps best explains, concisely, anyway, the difference between right wingers and libertarians. Conservatives believe in some government.
It reminds us of James Madison's famous, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." It is precisely the sort of ideal which libertarians often forget. Of course, as so many of them don't believe in God or religion, the comment likely falls on deaf ears.
The fact is that we need some government, to borrow from Mr. Santorun again, or even the rights defended by libertarians would not be rightly defended or protected. To be sure, with the exception of the ultra libertarians who don't believe in basics such as driver's licenses, the charge isn't entirely fair. We know of few libertarians against any and all types of government.
But we do know that the type of government they want is simply not wise in the modern world. The libertarian minded like to point out that George Washington warned us against entangling foreign alliances, yet do not want to concede that Washington would have never imagined rogue nations such as North Korea or Iran having the potential nuclear power which they claim to have. Indeed, and with all due respect to the great General, even at the time he gave such advice, now taken as pearls of wisdom by certain members of the libertarian and liberal intelligensia, one has to appreciate his words held irony even then: would American independence have been gained without the aid of the French, Dutch, and Spanish?
Yes, Washington has grown too large and must be reduced. It has grown far beyond the scope which the framers intended for it. But to pare it down to the level Representative Paul and his ilk would like to see is simply dangerous. The foreign affairs sphere is precisely the area where the federal government should be the largest. Conservatives understand that; libertarians do not. Yet our nation and their creed would not survive without the knowledge and rational application of so very basic a principle.
- Rick Santorum, from the GOP debate 1.7.2012
As though the direction of such a quote isn't obvious enough to anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of current American politics, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum shot that barb towards the decidedly libertarian Ron Paul. It perhaps best explains, concisely, anyway, the difference between right wingers and libertarians. Conservatives believe in some government.
It reminds us of James Madison's famous, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." It is precisely the sort of ideal which libertarians often forget. Of course, as so many of them don't believe in God or religion, the comment likely falls on deaf ears.
The fact is that we need some government, to borrow from Mr. Santorun again, or even the rights defended by libertarians would not be rightly defended or protected. To be sure, with the exception of the ultra libertarians who don't believe in basics such as driver's licenses, the charge isn't entirely fair. We know of few libertarians against any and all types of government.
But we do know that the type of government they want is simply not wise in the modern world. The libertarian minded like to point out that George Washington warned us against entangling foreign alliances, yet do not want to concede that Washington would have never imagined rogue nations such as North Korea or Iran having the potential nuclear power which they claim to have. Indeed, and with all due respect to the great General, even at the time he gave such advice, now taken as pearls of wisdom by certain members of the libertarian and liberal intelligensia, one has to appreciate his words held irony even then: would American independence have been gained without the aid of the French, Dutch, and Spanish?
Yes, Washington has grown too large and must be reduced. It has grown far beyond the scope which the framers intended for it. But to pare it down to the level Representative Paul and his ilk would like to see is simply dangerous. The foreign affairs sphere is precisely the area where the federal government should be the largest. Conservatives understand that; libertarians do not. Yet our nation and their creed would not survive without the knowledge and rational application of so very basic a principle.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Libertarianism
I have said to many folks, particularly my libertarian friends, that I want to be a libertarian so bad I can taste it. And I mean that. So what keeps me from signing on?
A handful of issues, for starters: as a group, they support abortion; they don't care for an aggressive foreign policy; and I simply can't quite come around on drug questions. Further, and this will sound very odd coming from me, they have too much of a distrust of government. Like it or not, there are things which only a government can do. Keeping order, for one, and keeping potential enemies at bay with the aggressive measures necessary. But I think the root problem with libertarianism as it stands today is the belief that the individual is the final arbiter of morality, the one who sets the standard for right and wrong.
No individual can hold this kind of power. On a practical level, it invites anarchy or worse: a might makes right society. On a philosophic level, it begs one very important question: if I, as an individual, can make up my own mind about people and things, why should I ever listen to you? No progress can be made from such a starting point in ethics, which certainly means nothing can be done in any other area either.
If libertarians were to admit that it is not the individual (or that weak sister, consensus) which dictates what can and cannot be done, that justice and rightness exist outside of those realms having a genuine being of their own, I may reconsider my position. Until then, they are as bad as liberals: they want what they want because they want it. It is a poor substitute for critical thought on critical issues.
A handful of issues, for starters: as a group, they support abortion; they don't care for an aggressive foreign policy; and I simply can't quite come around on drug questions. Further, and this will sound very odd coming from me, they have too much of a distrust of government. Like it or not, there are things which only a government can do. Keeping order, for one, and keeping potential enemies at bay with the aggressive measures necessary. But I think the root problem with libertarianism as it stands today is the belief that the individual is the final arbiter of morality, the one who sets the standard for right and wrong.
No individual can hold this kind of power. On a practical level, it invites anarchy or worse: a might makes right society. On a philosophic level, it begs one very important question: if I, as an individual, can make up my own mind about people and things, why should I ever listen to you? No progress can be made from such a starting point in ethics, which certainly means nothing can be done in any other area either.
If libertarians were to admit that it is not the individual (or that weak sister, consensus) which dictates what can and cannot be done, that justice and rightness exist outside of those realms having a genuine being of their own, I may reconsider my position. Until then, they are as bad as liberals: they want what they want because they want it. It is a poor substitute for critical thought on critical issues.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Libertarians are Liberals
Have you ever noticed that libertarian and liberal both begin with the same five letters? Is it a coincidence, or not?
This point is driven home by the recent announcement that two 'liberaltarians' are supposedly being forced out of the Cato Institute, a traditionally libertarian think tank. But it could be that the pair are simply moving up the ladder, one of whom is moving over to work with The Economist.
Yet the precise nature of the change isn't really important. The fact is that libertarians are a bit of a schizophrenic bunch: liberal on social issues while conservative on fiscal matters. It is fair to ask if you can have it both ways and maintain any philosophic consistency.
Can one really be fiscally responsible in public policy while essentially arguing that social responsibility is a different question? Why do we have the freedom to do almost anything we want personally (provided it does not violate that vague and rather self-serving platitude: so long as it doesn't harm anyone else) yet have no such similar freedom politically? Indeed, how can one reasonably argue that financial discipline and personal discipline do not go hand in hand? If you are no good at the one it is doubtful you can be particularly effective at the other.
In short, libertarians are essentially liberals who happen to like fiscal discipline. Yet such is like getting blood from the proverbial turnip. If folks are not personally disciplined they are not likely to be publicly disciplined. After all, we reap what we sow. Sow freedom, reap freedom, with all the errors that must grow from that field. But sow justice, the idea that some things are really right and others really wrong on their own merit, and we improve society by having bettered ourselves.
This point is driven home by the recent announcement that two 'liberaltarians' are supposedly being forced out of the Cato Institute, a traditionally libertarian think tank. But it could be that the pair are simply moving up the ladder, one of whom is moving over to work with The Economist.
Yet the precise nature of the change isn't really important. The fact is that libertarians are a bit of a schizophrenic bunch: liberal on social issues while conservative on fiscal matters. It is fair to ask if you can have it both ways and maintain any philosophic consistency.
Can one really be fiscally responsible in public policy while essentially arguing that social responsibility is a different question? Why do we have the freedom to do almost anything we want personally (provided it does not violate that vague and rather self-serving platitude: so long as it doesn't harm anyone else) yet have no such similar freedom politically? Indeed, how can one reasonably argue that financial discipline and personal discipline do not go hand in hand? If you are no good at the one it is doubtful you can be particularly effective at the other.
In short, libertarians are essentially liberals who happen to like fiscal discipline. Yet such is like getting blood from the proverbial turnip. If folks are not personally disciplined they are not likely to be publicly disciplined. After all, we reap what we sow. Sow freedom, reap freedom, with all the errors that must grow from that field. But sow justice, the idea that some things are really right and others really wrong on their own merit, and we improve society by having bettered ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
