If you cannot criticize your own political ideology, your own spiritual beliefs or lack thereof, your own attitude or any staunch position you have – you become one sided and stagnant. Out of all my past political articles on being a libertarian, I kept waiting for someone to rip me apart and disagree with me. I’ve decided to do it myself. If you are a liberal democrat, try to viciously critique your own views and so forth. It’s a powerful way to expand your knowledge.
No matter what position I take, I can see it’s weaknesses and how easily it could be considered dead wrong. I have said I’m a constitutional libertarian, perhaps not extremely allegiant, but close to it. I’m really just taking that position so I can understand it. From a liberal-democrat perspective, I’ll take an antithetical position to libertarianism as an exercise. This is like beating the shit out of yourself!
A Libertarian Critiques His Own Ideology
I’ve said in past articles that the Federal reserve should be eliminated, federal income taxes abolished and a libertarian/constitutional government instated. Here are some self-contradictory observations:
Without a federal reserve, how will money be created? Will people trade their socks for food? Will people create their own currency on cheap computer printers? In a massive civilized society, you must have government to prevent absolute chaos and anarchy. Of course, most libertarians don’t believe in removing the federal reserve, just in reforming it’s size/function/power.
One of the most supported ideas is on eradication of social welfare. The libertarian position on welfare is:
We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating AFDC, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap.
Let’s think about this “each man for himself” principle. It crossed my mind that for the libertarian ideology to work, it must be perfectly and absolutely total in every way. There can be no other position such as support for any governmental intervention. If any form of liberal ideology were interjected, it would drive up costs and cause severe problems. All societal costs would have to be perfectly low at all times or it cannot work and lead to violent anarchy.
For pure libertarianism/constitutionalism to work it would have to be a strictly enforced ideology – like totalitarianism in reverse, but just as rigid.
Pure libertarianism in many ways is a capitalistic utopia, much like a diametrically conservative view of a liberal socialistic utopia (like Sean Hannity’s position against liberalism). In this hypothetical capitalistic super-free society, tiny non-interventionist government with no regulation on anything, what happens if you cannot afford to eat or pay your house note/rent? What if no church or any of the above listed libertarian options could help? What happens to you and your starving children? Does society tell them, “Too bad for you loser…it’s a dog eat dog world. learn how to make it. Get three jobs and stop bitching! If you die of starvation, I do not care.”
Why not build Nazi style crematoriums or offer cyanide candy so they can commit suicide? In a libertarian utopia, a starving child is allowed to starve. Every super-free liberty loving citizen is only concerned with themselves and to hell with everyone else. If a struggling family doesn’t have the good fortune to know the right people or live in the right area, then what…we let them die on the street? We send a meat wagon to scoop up their dead bodies, toss them in a hole, douse them in gasoline and burn their bodies? Who will pay for the meat wagon or the gasoline, the matches to light the fire? The government? No…remember? This is a libertarian society…hahahaha!
This may seem extreme and speciously argued, but is something to think about. I’m personally not a fan of welfare, but sometimes people really need help; however, the current system is easily gamed and extremely corrupted. In a libertarian world, it’s hypothesized that all prices would be low; there are no federal income taxes and somehow because of the way it works, you can get a job flipping burgers at McDonald’s while easily affording a home and health insurance for you and your family. If there are no federal income taxes, how will all streets and bridges be built/maintained? Will the entire congress and president work for free? State taxes would have to be massively increased. It would be interesting to see how this would work in a huge country like America (as long as I have an AK-47 and a truckload of ammo).
In reality, not everyone will agree to such a capitalistic utopia. Because so many people will disagree, it could never happen. I believe that if such a society existed right now, it wouldn’t last a day. Crime would skyrocket beyond anything you could imagine and people would kill for food – a free for all anarchy where the rich would be murdered in a horrifically evil bloodbath.
Currently, the American education system is terrible and only rich kids go to good schools. The main reason college costs are so unbelievably high is because of years of unregulated student loans. Since 90% of college education costs are paid with loans, the schools have driven up costs into the stratosphere to take advantage of the highly corrupted system. Basically, libertarians have no education policy or maybe they do. This is from their site:
It is time to break up the public education monopoly and give all parents the right to decide what school their children will attend. It is essential to restore choice and the discipline of the marketplace to education. Only a free market in education will provide the improvement in education necessary to enable millions of Americans to escape poverty.
I don’t really understand how this would help or work – unless the society ran perfectly and had no opposition from anyone…EVER. I admit our government has too much power and needs to be smaller – but how small exactly? If Joe Blow digs ditches for a living, is his job really easier than a stockbrokers? Does stockbroker Jimmy deserve a 750 billion dollar paycheck just because his rich daddy left him his very own corporation as inheritance? Does Joe Blow deserve minimum wage for his backbreaking work? Should Joe Blow stab rich Jimmy and take his wallet?
I haven’t even mentioned what might happen with a 100% non-interventionist foreign policy. Let’s see. Russia and North Korea invade Britain and vow to kill every citizen. From the libertarian standpoint, we would say, “Ouch…that sucks for you. See ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya!” and turn our backs on our own friends. Remember, in this libertarian utopia, we don’t intervene with foreign affairs. We can’t, otherwise costs would rise and kill our super-free world of liberty!
This is fun isn’t it? I may have just critiqued my way out of my own position…LOL! (just kidding)
When you start thinking about these things from a different perspective, it can really scorch your brain! My real position is that more libertarianism would be a good mix in today’s incredibly over-sized government. Right now, both the republicans and democrats are into mad spending, huge government and far too much foreign intervention (like in Iraq).
Take a look at the Nolan Chart:
Libertarian Nolan Chart
It’s obvious this chart is oversimplified and doesn’t really tell the entire story, but is interesting to study. The chart offers no description of where corporate welfare exists; libertarians usually say this is because the American left and right are far too similar and both sides often support corporate welfare as in the bipartisan support of the recent trillion dollar bailout; therefore, the chart is complete from a libertarian perspective. Basically, both Obama and McCain fall into the totalitarian-populist section of this chart.
Educate Yourself: Really Learn Politics and History
My critique of libertarianism was written from a particular perspective – a collective idea gathered from people I have talked with criticizing libertarianism in my presence. These are common arguments of people who know very little about politics. All my arguments are spurious at best – as there are many different vistas – from moderate to anarcho-capitalism. For instance: if you don’t know the difference between republican constitutionalism, libertarian individualism, progressive democracy or plutocratic nationalism – how can you make an educated choice for president or congressional members?
In Brian Patrick Mitchell’s book, “Eight Ways to Run the Country: A New and Revealing Look at Left and Right”, there are 8 political perspectives:
- communitarian
- progressive
- radical
- individualist
- paleolibertarian
- paleoconservative
- theoconservative
- neoconservative
Do you know the difference between all the above? Do you believe Obama and McCain to be experts on all these different ideologies and their histories? In America, you aren’t expected as a citizen to know anything. You’re expected to watch TV, deriving all opinion from it; thus the debates and most popular political discussions are based on the common citizen’s ignorance, including my own.
Just for fun, take the World’s Smallest Political Quiz to see what you are! I’m 100% libertarian. Let me know what you are.
#1 by dcr at October 12th, 2008
| Quote
Several of the things you mentioned in your self-critique were things that went pretty well before government got involved.
When there were no public schools in this country, literacy was more widespread than what it is now.
The country held together for some 90 years without income taxes, and then income taxes were started in order to pay for the Civil War. Congress ended income taxes in 1872. Income taxes were briefly brought back in 1894-1895, then made permanent in 1913.
People often want to regulate businesses, to protect against monopolies. Standard Oil, which was an early company to be broken up as a monopoly, is often brought up as an example. But, Standard Oil’s market share was already in decline before the company was broken up. Competition was already breaking their “monopoly”! On top of that, after the breakup, the value of the shares of the various companies created from the split increased, making John Rockefeller the wealthiest man in the world at the time!
These days, people complain about lobbyists and special interest groups running the government, but the only reason those groups exist is because of the increasing number of areas government has pushed its way into our lives. It’s easier to convince a relative handful of politicians to do things your way than it is to market yourself to the populace.
Look at the recent bail-out, for example. Politicians argue that without the bail-out many companies would have failed, which would have had a domino effect on the rest of the economy. They blame greed and corruption. But, what they overlook (or gloss over) is their own role in that greed and corruption. With the companies (Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac) they were supposed to be regulating, they looked the other way as long as the campaign contributions kept pouring in. On top of that, some of the companies would not have been in such bad financial shape had there not been government policies forcing them to grant subprime loans. Another factor was “mark-to-market” accounting, which meant, essentially, that things had to be valuated at the price they would sell for in the current market. So, if you had something that would be worth $1,000 at maturity a year from now, you couldn’t say that you had an asset worth $1,000. Instead, you have an asset that’s worth what the value would be if sold today. Maybe that’s $500. Or, if there are no buyers, it would be $0. Even if you’re guaranteed to be getting that $1,000 at maturity, you couldn’t valuate it as such. So, that accounting requirement, which went into effect November 2007, had the effect of making companies (perhaps in their next quarterly report) appearing as though they had suddenly (as compared to the previous quarter, especially if they had not been using mark-to-market accounting until required to do so in November 2007) become less valuable and were in worse financial shape than previously thought. And, what effect do you think that has on their stock price, not to mention the willingness of lenders to loan them money?
(In fact, in the bail-out bill, the SEC was given the authority to suspend that accounting measure if it deems it necessary. Bet you didn’t see any of this on the news though. It would be an admission that government was at least partially to blame, and they can’t have that, can they? Much easier to blame the whole mess on Wall Street than to accept any culpability for themselves.)
So, at any rate, a variety of things went into the current economic situation; many of them a result of government. So, when people argue that free market economics have failed, that’s simply not the case because we really didn’t have a free market to begin with! In a free market, do you think a private lender is going to make a loan to someone they know will not be able to cover it when there’s no government promises (implicit or explicit) to back it?
In a real free market, many of the problems people blame on the “free market” just wouldn’t have happened!
At any rate, perhaps you might have been a fan of Jeffersonian democracy, which viewed government as a necessary evil in order to protect basic liberties, but that the same government must be watched with a careful eye and kept small.
There was a lot of emphasis on self-government. Stuff like self-reliance and rugged individualism were things that were once praised in this country, but now they are often ridiculed. Too many people want to be able to shop at the mall and buy mass-market clothes so they can look like everyone else and everyone they see on the TV when they plop down in front of it after a mind-numbing day at the office where they spend their time trying to fit in and be like everyone else.
#2 by Revellian at October 12th, 2008
| Quote
Thanks for reading this and commenting Dan! One great comment is worth a thousand irrelevant ones. Ah yes, the good old days when America worked the way it’s supposed to.
Ideas like self-reliance and individualism have become superficially cosmetic, not based on “rugged individualism” (which we need right now) – but on personal image. Instead of self-blame, our leaders are talking about financial “confidence” in American government and the banking system. If the entire system is based on credit, it’s not even a real system, but a paper house – and it’s now crumbling.
Certain people in the news have covered the bailout in detail, but not on all channels. MSNBC is the left-wing anti-bush, anti-conservative news channel. Fox is the Bush loving, anti-liberal right-wing extremist channel…LOL! I watch both, but prefer CNN to all of them. But I read much more news than I watch on TV.
As you know, there will never be a pure system of politics in America – but we sure don’t want to go in Obama’s direction, although I understand why people like liberalism. Women especially like the idea of no war and feeding all the starving children on the entire earth – thus they believe Obama is their man. Unfortunately, there’s no money to pay for all his ideas and the government will get bigger, thus spawning even more corruption and less freedom. If only the republican party were anti-war, I’d probably be one.
America’s options? Big government or bigger government…hahahaha, not much of a choice!
So Dan, can I categorize you as a staunch anarcho-capitalist? In the current world of narcissistic instant gratification and keeping up with the Joneses, the idea that we must all support ourselves doesn’t sound good to everyone, especially those dependent on welfare or government housing.
Do I hear civil war? Why don’t we split the country in half between capitalists and socialists. The division is so deep and filled with extremist hatred – it would sure make great TV…LOL!!!
#3 by dcr at October 12th, 2008
| Quote
Why don’t we split the country in half between capitalists and socialists.
You’d have to break it in thirds. Have you seen the projected electoral votes for McCain and Obama? The coastal states largely support Obama while the middle states mostly support McCain.
Of course, that doesn’t tell the full story. I remember the Bush & Kerry maps, and when they were broken down to county levels, you see that most of Kerry’s support came from the urban areas and most of Bush’s support came from suburban and rural areas.
So, when you break it down like that, there’s no easy way to divide the country.
But, on the other hand, a lot of people don’t really put a lot of thought into political decisions. They vote by party or, worse, they vote by some sort of popularity contest. Like they vote for whoever all their friends are voting for, or they vote for someone based on appearance rather than policies. Or they vote for whoever had the best zingers at the debate. Some of the brightest minds aren’t the best public speakers!
A big problem is that journalism is largely dead. We’ve got a number of news broadcasts, but they’re all pretty much the same. There’s no real investigative reporting. The media is supposed to be a watchdog, not a lapdog.
If there was more truth in media, I think we’d see far less socialistic tendencies in government.
You’re right. “Individualism” has come to be more cosmetic than substantive. When I was in school, I read Emerson and Thoreau. I read things on comparative religion. I read Jung. And a whole bunch of other stuff. But none of that was assigned in school. That was all on my own. Not enough people question things; they just accept what is spoon-fed to them.
Perhaps, in the end, our only lot in life is that “we must cultivate our garden.”
#4 by Revellian at October 12th, 2008
| Quote
Hey Dan! I’m glad you mentioned self-motivated learning, simply to learn on your own. My own political beliefs are evolving and are much different than a year ago. I think that a love for learning and self-reliance is the greatest thing a person can do for themselves.
Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas are conservative, free market states, plus between the three, have more guns than any other 3 states. Together they could be the root of a new country called Anarchia…LOL!!! All kidding aside, globalism is the future. We can fight against it, but it cannot be stopped…can it (I’m against it). It does make for interesting conversation though.
Politicians are like movie stars, and Obama is a sensation. Hey, if Hollywood is behind Obama then he truly is a star, but definitely not good presidential material – of course McCain isn’t either. I still have a lot to learn though
#5 by Janna at October 13th, 2008
| Quote
On Facebook, there’s an application called “The World’s Smallest Political Quiz.”
The results are plotted on a grid that looks just like the Nolan Chart you posted.
My results said I was Libertarian.
My dot was right over the I and the B.
#6 by Revellian at October 13th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Janna! I’ve never taken that quiz but I’ll check it out right now. I’m basically an anti-war libertarian who carries a big gun…hahaha
#7 by Janna at October 13th, 2008
| Quote
I forgot to include the link…
Here it is:
http://apps.new.facebook.com/advocatesquiz/
#8 by Revellian at October 13th, 2008
| Quote
Thanks Jana! I took it, my red dot was in all the way in the upper corner!
#9 by Jo at October 13th, 2008
| Quote
This is how I scored on the test, not qualified to choose a political party in America but I answered the rest as best suits what I think. Good thought provoking post Bobby.
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 70%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 50%.
According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is…
Centrist
CENTRISTS espouse a “middle ground” regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice.
Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind,
tend to oppose “political extremes,” and emphasize what
they describe as “practical” solutions to problems.
#10 by Revellian at October 13th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Jo! Australia & America actually have very similar politics. If the American government weren’t so corrupted, I might be more centrist, but will always be libertarian. The way I see it, the only way to get rid of government corruption, is to radically reduce the power & size of it. Thanks for taking the test, it’s interesting to see how different people score
#11 by Mitch at October 13th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Bobby,
This is truly an educational post. I spend more time reading economic and social literature and am sadly lacking in solid political theory.
Between you, Dan and Ayn Rand, that will change!
(I’m reading Atlas Shrugged)
She says one thing that your preface declares is of utmost importance:
“Consistency is not a habit of mind which it is wise to practice or to expect of the human race.”
I just read that this morning. To see it reinforced minutes later in your writing … well, that’s how I learn things!
I’ve got to come back and re-read this thread.
Then I’ll retake the quiz: my current score states that I’m 70% crust and 30% cinnamon. It labels me as a Left-handed Pop-Tart®
This will never do.
Cheers,
Mitch
#12 by Revellian at October 13th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Mitch! You read Ayn Rand? I’m a huge fan of her “objectivism” political theory. Atlas Shrugged is a fantastic book. One of my favorite books ever written is her “The Virtue of Selfishness” which had a big impact on me. Rand’s objectivism is a basis of libertarianism, though I wonder how many cups of coffee that woman had to drink to compose her theories…haha!
You’re a leftist? OMG!!! LOL!!
I’m a left leaning libertarian. I believe in some foreign intervention/foreign alliances and a little governmental control, but not much. I’m not an anarchist, but I think it’s an important part of any free society.
#13 by Miss Moneypenny at October 13th, 2008
| Quote
Don’t you mean beating the BS (Barack Shit) out of yourself???
Great Post! Your end sounds like the Roman Bread and Circuses of Emperor (oops, I mean, President) Obama which is based on Obama’s self-centered powerful MoJo to his sheeple?
“My job is to be so persuasive that if there’s anybody left out there who is still not sure whether they will vote, or is still not clear who they will vote for, that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany … and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama” Double “Ohh” B.S. at the Lebanon Opera House, New Hampshire. January 7, 2008.
P.S. Libertarian Politicians like Bob Barr love to waffle on the issues, too… flip-flopping must be in their Political DNA?
I am too old to label myself in the 8 political perspectives, yet I believe in the principles of our Founding Father’s republican constitution.
#14 by Revellian at October 13th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Debbie! Unfortunately, I’ve yet to see Obama’s magical light beam of persuasion…hahaha! What it come down to is it is not the government’s job to care about people.
Basically, you are a constitutional anarchist
Haha!!! I used to think of anarchy as being bad, but it’s not. I guess it’s like borderline anarchy, where you have just enough government to keep order and defend our country.
The liberal-fascist Obama theory is:
The government is corrupt. In the deepest sense, this corruption, greed and inability to fail is America’s biggest problem. So…to make things better, let’s make this greedy, corrupted over-sized beast BIGGER with more power.
It’s like healing a burn with a blow torch.
#15 by Mitch at October 13th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Bobby,
“Atlas Shrugged” is having a profound impact on me. Especially when I see it being reenacted on CNN.
I’ll be paying more attention to her political viewpoints and see how that fits with the Libertarian views.
Cheers,
Mitch
#16 by Revellian at October 13th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Mitch! Where I differ from Ayn Rand is on spirituality. I am a life long, very serious student of Zen – not in a religious sense, but in a philosophical.
For me, Zen is the philosophy of the highest order and of spiritual agnosticism. Every religious person and especially every atheist should learn Zen. It is in “not knowing” that we find all truth.
The reason I’m not on the left, is because corruption, dishonesty and greed will always grow in the hearts of powerful people; therefore, the government – regardless of any regulation – can never be trusted to own and take care of people
#17 by Miss Moneypenny at October 14th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Bobby!
I wonder if my Great-Great-Great-Grandfather, John Adams, would be happy to hear he was a constitutional anarchist?
#18 by Revellian at October 14th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Debbie, is John Adams really your relative? I suppose he was an anarchist in some respects because “civic virtue” and strong individualism was central to his beliefs.
That’s what we’re not hearing about from Obama & McCain!
#19 by J.C. at October 14th, 2008
| Quote
Brilliant post Bobby, I would only to add that in spite of how insufficient and imperfect ideologies might be, there are still choices that we can make. If everything was perfect it wouldn’t be interesting at all.
#20 by Revellian at October 14th, 2008
| Quote
Thanks J.C.! You said, “there are still choices that we can make.” Ah YES! That my friend is why my political beliefs are about individualism and opposed to overpowered government. Every political thinker believes their way is the best way – but there is no best way for everyone. Ultimately it is up to each individual to do their best. Politics is nothing more than something to argue about
#21 by Miss Moneypenny at October 14th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Bobby,
According to my Grandparents research, John Adams was my relative. We never questioned their credibility since my Grandparents needed to prove their lineage to an ancestor who aided in achieving our independence. My Grandmother was a member in the Daughters of the American Revolution and my Grandfather was a member in the Sons of the American Revolution. Fortunately, both my Republican Grandparents were not alive to see what the Bush’s have done to our nation.
Can McCain and Obama spell “Civic virtue” to find the meaning of Civic virtue???
#22 by Revellian at October 14th, 2008
| Quote
Wow Debbie, that’s fascinating! My great-great grandfather (on my dad’s side) was one of Roosevelt’s rough riders but I have very little information. My mom is half American Indian but I’ve never seen a picture of her father or grandfather. My grandmother remarried in older age and burned every last trace of memory as requested my her new husband. I’ve been trying to get more information, but I do have a partial family tree. I hope to find out more.
Miss Moneypenny Adams! I doubt either candidate consider civic virtue to be important in today’s world. Republican used to actually mean something.
#23 by Mitch at October 14th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Bobby,
I have you to thank for understanding enough about the Libertarian view to appreciate what I was seeing during my research for the BlogActionDay topic of poverty. It was fun to think about you as I read over the ideas of Henry George and Fred Foldvary.
Having tried to correlate economics to government ideas in three days caused my head to explode.
I am going to need your opinion on some of these ideas…soon as my vision clears!
Cheers,
Mitch
#24 by Revellian at October 14th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Mitch! I’ve though about writing a poverty article for Blog Action Day; I haven’t decided yet.
I think all charity should be done by churches, humanitarian organizations and kind individuals, but not the government.
I look forward to your post!
#25 by Lone Wolf at November 2nd, 2008
| Quote
That a pretty extreme form of libertarianism, I don’t think most libertarians would go that far. But you’re right libertarianism is a Utopian ideology that would not work.
Libertarianism is plagued with the wrong idea of “pull your self up by your boot straps, work hard and you’ll get ahead” (not that thats a bad idea, if you don’t try you’ll never get anywhere but if the deck has been stack against you it dose not matter how hard you try you’ll never get anywhere). That idea is wrong, most people are born with limited opportunity’s and some are born with none and if you don’t have the right opportunity’s you can not rise up the ladder and become a success. Some times you need the government to step in and give people opportunity’s.
True public schools in this country are failing however that does not mean public schooling is bad, in other country’s its succeeding but the public schools in this country are run by idiots.
One of the failings of libertarianism is the idea of not regulating large businesses. With out minimum wage laws company’s would pay people $1 an hour, with out child labour laws company’s would hire 10 years olds to work in factory’s (in fact in many country’s those are happening and being done by American company’s). With out regulations capitalism would divide society between the wealthy and the wage slaves. But too much regulation can be as bad as no regulation and illogical regulations can be even worse. But socialism is no answer (It has problems of its own) and communism is just stupid. Regulation is needed but its better to under-regulate than over-regulate.
Libertarianism is not all bad though, its got some good but so does every other system. The problem is people think there is one system that is an answer to everything and works every where. There isn’t.
The best system would be one that take all the parts of capitalism, socialism, libertarianism, communism, conservatism, liberalism, anarchism and all the other political and economic system that works cut off the parts that don’t squish them together cut off the parts that don’t work together. And you would have the best possible system. However what works and what does not depends on allot of factors, what works in a wealthy country where the vast majority are strongly loyal to the country and government will not work in a country where people are generally poor and loyalty’s are too there tribes, ethnicity’s, religions and so on.
A apologise for my spelling.