Maggie's Farm

Before I delve into my position, I’d like to comment on absolutes. Very few things in life are absolutes. Different political views exist because people have ranges of beliefs about human nature. If I say “Democrats are always and everywhere wrong”, that undermines my discussion point. I would no sooner say that than to say “Libertarians are always and everywhere right.” We’re not, but I happen to think we have a better handle on human nature and our framework tends to be logically consistent and tends to be free of emotion. Emotions, I believe, are useful in our personal lives and how we live them, not in how we frame policy. Legislating kindness, generosity and morality, because you feel people need to be this way, does not make people kind, generous or moral. Aristotle once wrote “The law is reason unaffected by desire.” What I want or desire for myself should not be codified, I should not let my emotions enter governance. But the nice thing about Libertarian thought is that it doesn’t limit what you want to believe at a personal level, it just limits your ability to intrude on others’ lives.

There is a politically correct movement in which intolerance is unacceptable, unless you’re intolerant of intolerance. This is logically inconsistent if you believe people have a right to opinions and viewpoints. I prefer to think that freedom of speech and thought means you have every right to be offended occasionally, rather than looking to ban viewpoints you disagree with. Of course, I remind my boys that even though this is true, it’s best to avoid offending people whenever possible. You don’t have to be judgmental to exercise good judgment, and this channels the essential core of Libertarian thought.

How did I arrive here? After all, I was a Republican from the day I first registered to vote until 2004. What made me reassess my politics?

George W. Bush. I don’t think he was a bad man or even necessarily a bad president. But he certainly was a bad manager of policy. Many people believe government functionaries and politicians work for the general well-being. These functionaries and politicians are individuals. So, by default, they will generally be acting in their own self-interest and rarely in favor of the general well-being (whatever that is, since this is not a well-defined concept to begin with and isn’t an “I know it when I see it” item). It’s no surprise to see corruption in government, or see laws with good intentions yield poor results.  Friedrich Hayek said,

“There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is a condition of a free society, the second means as De Tocqueville describes it, ‘a new form of servitude.’”

So when George W. Bush began spending outlandish sums and driving up deficits, my support for him waned. I discussed my departure from the Republican Party with my father saying “If Bush thinks this behavior is smart, he’s going to come to a bad end. In addition, Democrats will use Bush’s policies to justify their own when they have a president.” I don’t think this was particularly prescient. It seemed obvious when I said it in 2004. This is precisely what has happened.

Leaving the Republican Party was difficult, but I could not join the Democrats. While I agree with Democrats on a variety of social issues, I don’t share their economic ‘solutions’ for those same issues. You can’t fix a problem by throwing money at it and George Bush proved this.

Choosing what I’d do came down to a simple line of questioning. Recently, I used it with a British client who grew up Socialist and is still mildly left of center. He asked about my political views so I replied:

Me: “Do you have the right to tell me what to do or how to live or spend my money?”

Client: “No, of course not.”

Me: “Do you gain that right when you and 99,000 of your closest friends join you and try to make me do what you want?”

Client (after some thought): “No, even as a group we can’t tell you how to live.”

Me: “Then why can you pass a law which takes my income and gives it to someone else I don’t know or necessarily care about, and tell me it’s for the betterment of all, when it clearly leaves me worse off? At what point are my principles given a hearing?”

Client: (silence)

He tried to follow up by asking if I didn’t care about the poor, mentioning that I still benefitted from laws like Universal Healthcare. I replied I did care and I might benefit, but who and what I care about is my business, not his or the government’s. My choice to give to charity, and my choice of which charity to give to, is mine alone.

The Constitution is not a document which tells government what it should do with respect to making citizens engage desired behaviors. It is instead a document which recognizes that the smallest minority is the individual, and seeks to protect the individual from tyranny of the majority. The assumption that society is better off simply because government enforces a law or tax for the ‘betterment of society’ or regulates a business because it is seeking to impose ‘fairness’ or ‘economic justice’, presupposes that society (here represented by elected political figures) knows better than one single individual what is best for him/her, simply because “society” (really government) knows what’s best for it as a whole. These kind of collective decisions have few positive outcomes, and many unfortunate ones.

It takes an incredible leap of faith on the part of anyone to believe the innate goodness of government, let alone its ability to be efficient. We know individuals act in their own self-interest, at all times. Supposedly altruistic activities, like giving to charity, are self-interested behaviors. I feel good about myself when I give money to charity or work at a soup kitchen. Yes, I do it to help others, but I do it for myself, too. This is based on the concept that helping others allows you to help yourself and potentially yields benefits which multiply in the wake of your good works. If you choose to not give to any charities, that’s your choice not mine. I shouldn’t force you to give.

Which is why I like the Libertarian Party. Sure, we are classified as fringe whackos at times, and we do have our fair share, just like Republicans and Democrats. But there’s a level of respect for the different views which exist under our vast tent. I don’t engage in UFO watching, but some people think that’s fun and somehow they’ve tied it into their political views. I also don’t believe anarchy is a viable option, though some Libertarians do. Libertarians seek to minimize government, allowing people to live for themselves rather than relying entirely on assistance. The philosophical basis for my views is supported by many well respected institutions. There are noted economists and philosophers who also espouse this view.

Ayn Rand is sometimes used to give a face to Libertarianism. We agree with some of her work, but she did not like us since she rejected the political process. She also did very little to show a streak of kindness or caring, focusing upon herself. There is a difference between self-interest and self-absorption. There are other commentators, such as Neal Boortz, Glenn Beck and Bill Maher, who may profess some basic tenets, but are more interested in using the state to make you behave the way they prefer.

But the goal of Libertarianism is to let people manage their own lives, have greater choice and make their own decisions. Allowing them to live free from the intrusion of government.  To that end, I quote Johan Norberg:

If people feel stressed from too much responsibility and liberty, they can do something about it.  If they suffer from stress due to lack of power, there is nothing they can do about it.

People sometimes stress over ‘too much freedom, too much choice’. That too much choice is as bad as no choice seems to bear the tinges of truth. However, if confronted with no choice or too many choices, which is preferable? We can let government limit our choices through the use of regulation, laws, and taxes or we can define our own limits independently. If ‘society’ chooses to allow government limitations, it infringes on the rights of individuals.

For me, the basic tenets of liberty and freedom are more important than anything else, even the presumption of safety which government often pretends to supply. I’ll take choice, opportunity and chance over a forced agenda limiting choice, promising a cocoon of safety that can never be provided, fairness which is ill-defined and a belief in the assuredness that the state can solve problems of ‘economic injustice’. Chris Christie would do well to acknowledge the Libertarian strain as a valuable philosophical donor to the overall well-being of the US political and economic system.  Particularly since he’s invoked portions of our philosophy when it suits him, such as when he told a teacher she chose teaching even when she knew what the pay scale was: