The basic fundamental flaw in modern progressive thinking can be summed up exactly by their stance on gun control, wherein they feel that only police officers ought to have guns on the one hand, while also loudly proclaiming that police are corrupt, racist and cannot be trusted on the other. Of course, their explanation for this logic is simple. The racist and corrupt officers should be relieved of duty, and only good police officers should be left on the force to protect us. This is a fine sentiment, but it is not based in any sort of reality. Firstly, because a sense of what is good moral behavior is relative, and secondly because it is simply not possible to monitor that closely and predict the future behavior of any human being who desires to take the job as a police officer. The more robust system is, as Milton Friedman puts it,
Martin Luther King Jr. was an extremely eloquent and intelligent man, far ahead of his time in many ways. Besides the equal rights he fought for here at home he had much wisdom to impart regarding America’s foreign affairs as well. Since his passing America has only increased their meddling in the affairs of foreign nations, most of whom present no immediate threat to the safety of the United States. This pre-emptive war presents possibly the greatest risk to the safety and well being of America. Stretching resources which could be used here at home or in case of actual defensive needs and creating enemies by imposing our will on those who do not seek it.
Some of my favorite excerpts as well as the recorded speech follow:
“As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask — and rightly so — what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government.”
“I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.
This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:
Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism (unquote).”
Last Wednesday Congress voted on an amendment introduced by Senator Rand Paul. This amendment was set to curb the authorities introduced in the Authorization for the use of Military Force Act (AUMF), which was introduced in response to the 9/11 attacks. It should be clear to anyone that this authorization has far exceeded its intended duration. Any military action set out by the United States in direct response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th have ended a long time ago. Yet 16 years later, two different presidents have continued to piggyback off of this authorization. If you give a mouse a cookie….
The bill introduced by Rand Paul seemed like it should have been a slam dunk, after all, why wouldn’t Congress have wanted their power back? Apparently this just goes to show my foolishly naive thinking yet again as the bill was voted down 61-36. There was a pretty good mix from both Democrats and Republicans on how they voted, with some of the most progressive senators voting in favor of Paul’s amendment. This should come as no surprise as the one area where “progressives” and libertarians can usually agree is on limiting the United States’ military empire.
This of course used to be a key platform of the conservative party. George W. Bush won his first election on the idea of non-interventionism. Sadly, the conservative party platform is quite different today, in large part due to W’s response to 9/11 and the AUMF. Those who voted against Paul’s amendment spit out the same tired rhetoric that an amendment such as this would put the country at risk because it would limit our ability to respond to national security threats quickly. They missed the irony that that response is both an insult to congress itself by confirming that they are incapable of getting anything done in a timely manner, and in opposition to the constitution which they were sworn to uphold.
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) even went so far as to say, “you can’t replace something with nothing, and we have nothing.” Well, I for one can think of something that you do have…
Recently I found myself in a Facebook “discussion” with someone, regarding the image shown above. My argument went something along the lines of pointing out that if the birds in the image were acting of their own self-accord, without force from some other entity then this was not communism, or even socialism, but rather voluntarism.
The original poster laughed at this assertion, giving me the proverbial pat on the head at my innocence. “How could this possibly be voluntarism?” She cried. “In a volintaristic society the brown bird would be left behind unless he could pay the blue birds!” She then proceeded to spout off a bunch of terms such as anarcho-communism among others, which apparently explained this comic better than voluntarism; at least to her.
Since I was unfamiliar with many of the terms she used, I figured perhaps she was unfamiliar with the true definition of the term voluntarism, so I thoughtfully provided the Merriam-webster definition of the word, it is: “the principle or system of doing something by or relying on voluntary action or volunteers“. Seemed like a pretty good fit to me, but she still wasn’t buying it and insisted that I was not seeing the image correctly. Apparently I was too focused on the hammer and sickle, and not focused enough on the color black in the background. Well, this was getting truly confusing to me now as I had no idea which parts of the strip were supposed to have meaning and which weren’t, so I decided to leave the conversation at that point.
So my question is, was this person seeing something in the image that I am missing that makes it not voluntarism, or was she arguing with the dictionary?
In the not so distant past I was a liberal. Not a classic liberal, but a “progressive” liberal. Educated as an engineer I considered myself to be a fairly smart individual, someone who could understand the “common sense” policies proposed to keep the government involved in our lives. Sure, not all politicians had pure intentions, but certainly the checks on their power would ensure that the good intentions of public policy would mostly shine through; or so I told myself at the time. I voted for Barack Obama in his first term, thinking that he was the obvious choice while indulging myself in the rhetoric of his campaign about change and hope; I even posted an Obama campaign sign in my front yard.
So what happened? How could I have gone from that to writing a libertarian news site? Well the short answer is that I initially found myself interested in libertarianism under what were, admittedly, somewhat selfish notions. I had become disillusioned with politics and the feeling that my input did not – and never would – matter in a significant way. In 2012, with only the most basic understanding of libertarianism I cast my vote for president of the United States for Ron Paul. Since that time I have greatly enhanced my understanding of libertarianism through studying economics in graduate school, and independent study of such renowned economists as Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand.
So what then is libertarianism? It is the political, economic and social system which provides the most opportunity for success – however you may define that – to the greatest number of people. The foundation for libertarianism is the idea that each person is their own sovereign individual with the right to decide how they lead their life and the ownership of their property and all products of their efforts with the caveat that an individual’s actions must not inflict harm on another individual. This is of course a high-level overview, but it is this right to life and property which form the basis for libertarianism.
It has been suggested that libertarianism benefits only the haves, while leaving the have-nots out to dry. This is false. The current system of crony capitalism, which is the direct result of not following libertarian principles, does do this. The course of history however, has been perfectly clear in showing that a free market system has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system so far yet devised. In a free market system, the economy is not a fixed pie and for someone to rise up does not require someone else to sink down. On the contrary, in a free and voluntary economic system, agreements are only made when both parties see a benefit to the agreement. Now let’s not delude ourselves, this is not to say that no one will ever make a mistake in judgment, or enter into contracts which do not provide the originally anticipated benefit. We are dealing with humans, who are imperfect, sometimes corrupt, and almost always greedy, but we must remember two things: first, it is a proper role of the government to enforce contracts between individuals, so that if one party strays from their original agreement, the government does have a responsibility to take action against that individual and second, while we acknowledge that a free market society may have imperfections, so do all other economic systems, and the failings of those other systems have been proven throughout history to be much more detrimental to the overall well being of the people.
Milton Friedman once said, “History suggests only that economic freedom is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition.” At first glance, the idea that economic freedom is required for political freedom may seem unrelated or backwords. However, economic control is the means through which the government can most easily control an individuals’ actions and ability to care for themselves. A heavy system of taxes limit an individuals’ options to engage in a self sufficient lifestyle, while simultaneously giving government the permission to regulate actions.
Why is it that someone who wishes to paint fingernails or give manicures requires government licensing? Is this such a dangerous task that the government must closely monitor your activities in this field? What if a customer decided they wanted to use someone’s services who did not have this license? If this person chose to operate a store front or had to report their income taxes they would quickly be found out for operating an illegal business, and the government would quickly descend upon them, to punish this horrible individual who simply sought to exchange the service of painting nails for money. In order for there to be a law, such as mandatory occupational licensing, there necessarily has to be consequences for disobeying the law. If there are no consequences then it is not a law, but merely a suggestion.
Foreign Policy is one of the most easily identifiable areas where libertarians disagree with modern Republican rhetoric and agree with Democratic rhetoric. In reality, both parties have been following the same interventionist foreign policy for years. Obama failed to withdraw from Afghanistan as promised and killed thousands in drone strikes in the Middle East. Before him, Bush was elected to his first term on a non-interventionist foreign policy, though that quickly went out the window.
Libertarianism favors a non-interventionist foreign policy for the reason that it actually strengthens America’s position in the world. Free trade and diplomacy will always build more allies than bombs. The founders advocated for this position, and it was this approach that prevented the cold war from breaking out.
Wars, contrary to popular rhetoric, are not good for the economy. Tanks, airplanes and ships must all be paid for through either increased taxes, printing of money (which causes inflation), or borrowing from other nations.
It’s important to note that non-interventionism is not isolationism; countries that trade and interact peacefully with each other will be much less inclined to take military action against one another. However, in the case that military action is necessary for the defense of the United States, the proper course of action should be followed. That is, the declaration of war should be voted on by Congress, not declared by the President. The founders purposefully reserved this declaration for Congress and not the President because the implications of declaring war are so great and should not be exercised unchecked at the whim of a single person.
One of the biggest misconceptions surrounding libertarianism is that a libertarian environmental policy is where mother earth goes to die. It is an understandable misconception, and it was one of my last policy holdouts in embracing libertarianism. Since the protection of our environment is what allows all of life to exist, it is uncomfortable leaving such an important matter up to the marketplace. It provides a much higher comfort level to utilize government force to provide environmental protections. However, like most government provided functions, the benefit anticipated and the benefit received are not the same.
Instead of protecting the environment, the EPA has actually been the largest responsible party for pollution. If we revisit one of the foundations of libertarianism, private property, we can begin to see how libertarian policy protects the environment.
First, pollution of land, water and air would be self regulating. If, for example, a factory decided to dump pollutants into a stream, any property owner downstream of the factory would be able to file suit against the factory for destroying their property. The factory owner would then be responsible for restoring the damaged property to its original state.
Property owners also have an incentive for conserving resources, including wildlife. These are attractions for which individuals willingly pay, and we all know that an increase in demand is the best way to trigger an increase in supply. Government currently attempts to simulate this free market conservation model, distributing greater funding to wildlife areas which sell the most hunting and fishing licenses. Of course, this simulation adds levels of extra bureaucracy, skips the incentives and remove the competition which force private enterprises to operate efficiently. There is another, less obvious downside to state ownership of land and wildlife. That is, if the government damages the lands or its inhabitants, who takes action against the government to reverse the damages?