skip to main |
skip to sidebar
“Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.” (excerpt from the Libertarian Party platform preamble)
I do believe in the general goodness of mankind and I believe that there is much more beauty in the world than evil (evil is often times just a bit “louder”). However, as members of the human race, I think that we need to be honest with ourselves.
Throughout the history of the Western world* we have provided little indication that on a grand scale and for long periods of time we are capable of pursuing our own dreams and liberty without infringing on the rights and liberties of others. (*certainly grave challenges have existed outside of the Western world, I am simply much more familiar with the history of the West)
Feudalism, exploration of new lands and conquering of indigenous peoples, the Crusades, slavery, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, withholding of basic rights based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnic background, abuse of labor including men, women and children, sale of unsafe goods (including food and medicines) for economic gain, creation of vast corporate monopolies, destruction of our environment, institution-wide gambles that benefit a very few while putting the lives of billions around the globe in peril, wars to secure access to/expand resources and territory………
The list goes on and on. Despite the tremendous generosity of mankind, we also do terrible, terrible things to one another. Given the collective histories of Western societies, what makes us think that we can or will now, “defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings?” Have we not squandered so many opportunities to live this ideal?
I believe that individuals truly committed to the implementation of a Libertarianism directly from philosophy to agenda are misguided at best and often times are largely interested is furthering their own liberty and paying fewer taxes while conveniently failing to think about how to fulfill the “each other’s liberty” portion of the Libertarian platform. I am sure that many Libertarians would agree that vague philosophy needs to be boiled down to actionable plans, I have just yet to hear or read anything that I would consider realistically implementable.
Although certainly some government interference was/is overreaction to relatively small events, many of the institutions Libertarians hate so much—FDA, SEC, EPA for instance— were created after the wholesale and terrible infringement on the rights others. So what makes us think that we are so different now? Although the human race has advanced in some ways, in many ways we have not. In fact, in many ways we have simply become much for efficient and effective in our ability to create havoc.
I simply cannot advocate an approach in which communities, states and nations trust each other to be "our best selves." Based on our past and current behaviors, it is a fool’s errand as we have all been given ample opportunity to behave well--as societies and as individuals. Therefore, as we move through the Libertarian Party platform, I will outline the weaknesses of the Libertarian platform, reasons for my opinions and ultimately thoughts for alternative, implementable approaches.
Libertarianism is a political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action and the minimization or even abolition of the state. Libertarians embrace viewpoints ranging from a minimal state (or minarchist) to anarchist.
Sounds nice doesn’t it? Maximum individual liberty, minimization or elimination of the government? If we are honest with ourselves, who amongst us does not at some level revel in this idea?
The first sentence of the Libertarian Party platform states, “As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.”
I content that these sentiments and the full Libertarian philosophy is an interesting one and is in many ways beautiful. In fact, even though Marxism and Libertarianism are generally thought to be at dead opposite ends of the political spectrum, I find beauty in both.
In order or avoid servitude of the proletariat, Marxist theory asks that each member of society contribute only the amount of labor needed to support goods and services each individual needs and the communal needs of society. Because there are no classes and no state in an ideal Marxist society, each of our needs would be roughly the same. There is not a class of haves and a class of have nots. Given the absence of government, there is not opportunity for corruption. We all would exist peacefully and happily in an ideal communal state.
While Marxism asks us to live in harmony in a balanced communal existence, Libertarianism asks for the essentially the same result, coming from another direction. Libertarian philosophy also seeks elimination of the organized state, also seeks freedom, but rather that achieving this freedom via communal cooperation, freedom is achieved by each member of society enjoying maximum liberty while not violating the liberty of others.
Marxism and Libertarianism are both lovely ideas that do have great merit when exploring political philosophy and some of the more esoteric conversations that exist within the halls of academia.
However, as we will explore via a series of posts looking at the Libertarian Party platform, philosophy must be converted to pragmatic approaches. Moving directly from philosophy to application (without clearly defining the structure and the application approach) is asking for trouble. Soviet-style communism, for instance, was a disastrous mutilation of Marxist theory.
Even though most Libertarians would shutter at the comparison, I believe that they have a lot in common with Marxists--belief in a poetic philosophy without tactical strategy for implementation. Sort of like trying to build a skyscraper from a beautiful painting. At some point architectural drawings created by highly skilled architects and engineers are going to be needed.
To me the difference between traveling and touring is that travel changes you, touring fills scrapbooks and photo albums. Like great writing, movies, art and other experiences, travel allows you to see the world differently. By allowing places, people, food and histories to touch your heart and your mind, you are never exactly the same after the experience.
I have been fortunate enough to do a decent amount of both traveling and touring in my life and hope to do much more.
When we decided to go on an Alaskan cruise to celebrate my father-in-law’s 80th birthday I was excited about the opportunity to see at least parts of Alaska and to spend time with my family. I was frankly worried, however, that I would not have any opportunity to travel. That we would be so scheduled with excursions and ping-pong tournaments that I would have no chance to get at least some sense of what Alaska is…to let the place touch me in some way.
Southeast Alaska is unspeakably beautiful. There is a majesty and uniqueness that I have experienced very few other places. I was relieved to discover for myself that even in a sea of bodies trying to hustle their way to the next souvenir shop, you can find moments to “travel” if you allow yourself.
For instance, we visited the Mendenhall Glacier in Juneau. It was spectacular and heart-breaking at the same time. The glacier and the area are stunningly beautiful and it reminded me how small each of us is both physically and our individual time on this planet.
It was also really sad. The glacier is now retreating (shrinking) 200-250 feet per year. Just 10 years ago it was retreating 60 feet per year. It does not take a mathematical genius to calculate that the pace of change is dramatically accelerating. Our planet is unquestionably in a warming period, but the planet has cooled and warmed many times over the course of its existence.
Although warming and cooling is a natural process, the vast belching of emissions into our atmosphere is speeding the process dramatically according to nearly all reputable scientists. The debate within the scientific community is not whether or not man is causing or radically contributing to global warming, the debate is when will we begin having very real problems (is it 20 years, 50 years….?). The scientific debate is also what to do about it now and a good number of scientists are working to develop emergency plans if/when the plans become necessary.
It is virtually only radical religious leaders, self-interested business groups and politicians pandering to these organizations that try to cast doubt on man’s contribution to the problem of global warming. Much of the public is confused or ambivalent….exactly the status many desire.
So, it was with this knowledge that I marveled at the majestic Mendenhall Glacier. On one hand it is wondrous, powerful and ancient. On the other hand, there is a weakness, just a little bit of this majestic mass crying out for help.
As I walked the paths, I watched people stream back and forth. For portions of the walk I had tears welling in my eyes and I wondered….is there anyone else who is being dramatically touched by this experience? Has anyone else “traveled” and let this glacier, thousands of years old, change them? Have they allowed themselves to feel with their hearts as they experience first-hand the damage we are doing to our planet?
Or, will they snap their photos, tell there friends and family at home how beautiful it was as they hop into their SUVs, crank up the AC and stop at the local Wal-Mart on their way home to buy a bunch of stuff they don’t really need?
In recent years, Libertarianism and Constitutionalism have enjoyed dramatic spikes in popularity, particularly since Barack Obama won the White House. Although it is typically unfair to lump complex opinions and movements into broad categories, current Libertarians are often thought of wearing straw hats with Lipton tea bags dangling from the brims or as enthusiastically lining up to support Ron or Rand Paul.
For now decades, the U.S. Federal government has had serious credibility issues with the American people. Given episodes of scandal, incompetence, delusion and sometimes criminal behavior (literally and figuratively) it is easy to see how even situations of healthy disagreements with elected officials has turned into vilification of our government.
It is somewhat beside the point as inappropriate behaviors of any magnitude cannot be tolerated. However, I do believe that in many ways our government is less corrupt and more honest than at many other (perhaps most other) points in our history. The two key differences today are the media and information landscape AND that the stakes are much higher today. The world moves much faster and is much more interconnected than ever before in human history. Higher stakes require much higher standards of behavior.
Current information technology is both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, our elected officials are more accountable than ever before in our history--misbehavior does not last long given the ample supply of journalists, anchors, reports, commentators and bloggers currently at work.
The downside is we have turned on each other and the press seeking ratings and readers does a great deal to find drama and excitement in what might have seemed fairly mundane in decades past. Today, what might have been a healthy and much needed debate turns into a misrepresented circus that makes or breaks political careers.
It was within this media circus that I became at first disgusted by, then intrigued by the Libertarian sentiment gaining traction across our nation. What are these tea bag adorned Americans trying to tell us? Do they themselves really know? Unsure of these questions and intensely curious, I decided to explore the Libertarian platform.
The primary reason for this exploration was selfish...I needed to formulate my opinions as they relate to this movement. I was at first angry and disgusted by the appearance of Lipton tea bags seemingly stimulated by a black Democrat winning the White House—there were few if any tea bags and far too little outrage when a white, middle-aged Texan was violating virtually every tenant of the Libertarian platform (and more than a couple U.S. and international laws to boot).
But, I have gotten over this. I needed to explore for myself Libertarian philosophy and formulate my opinions accordingly.
I also thought that this exploration might help me to heal from a very, very disturbing encounter I had a few months ago. I was so angered by this incident, that I found myself falling into the trap of stereotyping all Libertarians as disingenuous blowhards. Stereotyping any classification of people is generally destructive and I work hard to avoid it.
The incident went like this.
I was minding my own business waiting for a friend at a local restaurant. A man sitting next to me was also waiting for a friend, so we started chit chatting. Some enough he volunteered that he was a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist. Interested, I asked him what these positions meant to him as they pertain to common current political issues.
He replied that he believed in personal liberty above all else and that the U.S. Constitution should be adhered to in a strict and literal fashion.
I agreed that I thought that the Constitution was obviously a critical document and should be upheld with the utmost dedication. Generations have died defending this document so it most certainly should not be taken lightly. However, the Constitution was in my view designed to be a living document and interpretation and debate is often needed as we work to preserve the integrity of the Constitution in our nation today.
Not so, the gentleman replied. There is no interpretation necessary and the Supreme Court is unconstitutional. Attempting clarification I asked, "You mean that the Supreme Court has delivered opinions that are in your view unconstitutional?" He replied no, that the existence of the Supreme Court is unconstitutional.
"Um...I am confused. You do realize that the entity that is the Supreme Court was formed by the Constitution, so it is illogical and incorrect to say that its existence is unconstitutional."
OK, I do try really hard not to be condescending when faced with sheer insanity and an uninformed position, but too often I betray myself. Trying to debate an unfounded position with someone who clearly slept through every civics lesson every presented to him…it was difficult to contain myself. I am sure that there was a "tone" in my voice.
When faced with the blinding reality of his ridiculous position, he was ANGRY. Rabid dog style mad. His face turned red, he started yelling and I actually thought he was going to hit me. Seriously, had no one ever pointed out that the Supreme Court was formed by the Constitution? Did this guy simply not care about this inconvenient truth?
Needless to say, I removed myself from the situation and after my initial anger wore off I was really sad. Is this what America has come to? Are passionate, evangelical style opinions based on nonsensical premises the order of the day? Our Founding Fathers had diverse opinions, can we no longer engage in one activity that most of them viewed as vitally necessary--debate and exchange of ideas?
Rather than stew in anger and myself hold uninformed positions about the Libertarian movement, I decided to explore the Libertarian platform key item by key item.
My next several blog posts will host this exploration. Of course these are solely my opinions. I hope that you do not accept any of my opinions at face value.
Read. Think. Explore. Debate. These are many of the activities that made this country great and I believe that these activities are important keys for the future promise of our great nation.
God Bless and God Bless America.
“Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.” (excerpt from the Libertarian Party platform preamble)
