The Means and the Ends of Liberty

For those not familiar with Reddit, I can't recommend it enough. It is a social news website where users can post links to items on the web. All of the other users can vote the item up or down and comment on it. The discussions and content can become offensive at times, but for the most part, Redditors are very funny, very intellectual people.

There are many "subreddits" or sections where items are posted on only a certain topic. Naturally, I subscribe to the Libertarian subreddit (reddit.com/r/Libertarian) where I get my daily affirmation of my political beliefs. After following this subreddit for about a year, I have noticed a trend. A large percentage of the posts have this format: "How would x work in a libertarian society?"

I suppose it's only natural. In a society that has an almost infantile reliance on government, people simply cannot imagine how we could possibly get by without it. Who would provide the roads, the utilities, the common defense? Who would regulate food and drugs? Who would protect us from Wall Street and credit card companies and predatory lenders? Who would provide welfare and health care and retirement funds?

People in general aren't going to argue that freedom is bad. People know freedom is a good thing. As a libertarian, I never have to argue from a deontological standpoint. That's not the problem. The problem is that people just don't know how freedom would work. Without government, chaos would ensue, right? So, I always get this statement from opponents: "Liberty is all well and good, but...." Suddenly they become consequentialists!

I always think of Nineteen Eighty-Four when encountering such statements. In George Orwell's dystopian future, "doublethink" is defined as "[t]he power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them...." You ask people if they agree with the statement "the ends justify the means" and most people will not. In fact, most people feel a sort of moral repugnance for such a notion; however, in the very next breath, you can get them to admit that they think it's okay to infringe someone's liberty as long as some benefit is derived from it. Doublethink.

So, I have found myself scouring world history for successful examples of freedom working pragmatically. I discovered the "golden age" of American liberty in the 1800s, the successful anarchy of Iceland from the 10th to the 13th centuries, the stateless "Free Territory" of Ukraine in the early 1900s--I've actually compiled quite a list. And you know what? None of it convinced anyone. It was as if an atheist demanded to see God, so God showed up and said, "Here I am." Will the atheist suddenly believe? No, he will demand magic tricks to prove that this person is indeed God. And if God successfully completes the magic tricks, the atheist will explain them as mere illusions that any magician could perform. You just can't win.

Never mind that economic freedom has been proven to reduce poverty and promote wage equality. Never mind that drug legalization has been proven to reduce drug use and violent crime. Never mind that eliminating speed limits actually decreases the number of fatal accidents. Never mind that free societies are historically responsible for incredible economic and technological advancement while communist countries inevitably crumble to pieces.

But let's say that liberty didn't work, that allowing the individual to be free was found to result mostly in negative results. Would I abandon it then? No! As noted philosopher Karl Popper said, "It is wrong to think that belief in freedom always leads to victory; we must always be prepared for it to lead to defeat. If we choose freedom, then we must be prepared to perish along with it."

Will freedom yield a perfect, utopian society? No! When human beings co-exist, there will always be problems. It is natural. It is to be expected. However, as Thomas Jefferson declared, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it."

Thankfully, as a libertarian, I have an excellent position to argue from. From a deontological standpoint, liberty is always the right thing to do, even if it has negative results; and, from a consequentialist standpoint, liberty has been shown to be the most successful economic and social system the world has ever known. I think I can sleep well tonight.

What is the role of government?

I don't mean to mitigate Devin's post on immigration by posting so soon afterwards, but since Nic's first comment I have been thinking a lot about the role of government, and what it should be. Mostly this post is in response to this comment by Nic "As with most issues, I believe that problems can be solved best by getting government out of the picture and leaning toward liberty." I am not attacking Nic, merely this comment has caused me to think about what role government should play, so Nic, you should more take this is a compliment. I had a simple response in the next comment that I made; " I think we just differ philosophically on the role of government so we probably won't ever totally agree on anything, which is fine." Since then I've spent a lot of time thinking about what the world would be like with less government "intrusion," and it's caused me to ponder where the best balance might lie. Please respond with your disagreements, I'm sure they'll be many.

1. Foremost in my mind is the issue of slavery. Now I know Nic believes in liberty, freedom, so obviously I'm assuming he doesn't believe in slavery. But without government intrusion under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln, would we not still theoretically have slavery in the South? Therefore I believe it is the role of government to protect the God-given, inalienable rights promised by the constitution, that the minority may not have power to protect itself. So my question to Nic (and anyone else), is it the role of government to ensure freedom for all citizens is maximized, or are we to govern ourselves?

2. I believe in government regulation. For example, the food you eat has come from strict standards enforced by the FDA to ensure maximum quality and safety. The water you drink has been treated under safety parameters, set out by the government, to make sure you and your families don't drink water infected with pathogens. Would these systems be better based purely on competing companies with no government regulation? Would our food and water be safe to eat and drink? Based on my experience in Peru, where there seems to be less regulation, the answer is no.

I had a few more to list but I think you get my point. I believe government exists to ensure fairness, equality (including equal opportunities), create and enforce law by popular consent, provide for the defense of our country, and to regulate consumer products and services to ensure quality, fairness, safety, and effectiveness. I agree that government often oversteps their bounds with misguided spending (mainly deficit spending) and occasionally creates laws that don't necessarily reflect the values of the constitution. But overall I think the government does a pretty good job at the things I mentioned. I am interested to hear what you think the role of government is, or is not. I am open to changing my viewpoints.

Undecided on Immigration

Since amnesty looks like the next big push by the Obama administration, and in the wake of Arizona's new law strengthening immigration enforcement (Rich, your unique perspective as a current AZ resident would be much appreciated here), I thought it would be an appropriate time for this blog's first discussion about immigration. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that I haven't formed any hard and fast opinions on this topic. I want those of you who have strong opinions about it to convince me that you're right.On the one hand, I'll admit to having a soft spot in my normally icy cold, stony, conservative heart (that one's for you, Creighton) for those who are willing to leave everything they have behind and come to a land of promise - a land that rewards those who break a sweat, work hard, and improve their lots. At some point in time, this is what our ancestors did. After living in Argentina for 2 years, I can't blame or fault anyone that would rather come here for the chance at a better life as long as they're willing to work for it. Speaking of working, I've worked alongside some "undocumented immigrants" or "illegal aliens" and some on work visas at Custom Fence, and I've found that in general, they are very hard working, family-oriented individuals who sent the majority of their earnings back home to provide for their families, and made concerted efforts at learning english (although I also know there are plenty who are not hardworking or law abiding once they're here).

On the other hand, I know many people from Argentina who have waited years and years, and for whatever reason have not been successful at entering the U.S. legally. Liberals like the word "fairness." How "fair" is it to those countless immigrants who have respected our laws, waited in line, tried to come here the right way, to have so many leap frog them by crossing the border illegally? I'd be very upset if I tried to get here legally, couldn't, to then see a blanket sweep of amnesty. I'd be thinking, "man, I'm an idiot! Why didn't I just hop the fence?" Wouldn't the mere talk of amnesty, then, increase the incentives and encourage people to break the law? I believe in "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law," and thus, am sympathetic towards those who try to come here the right way. But this brings us back to square one: is the current law a good one? Should it be changed? If so, how? Should we take the path chosen by the people of Arizona toward stricter enforcement? Or should we go down the road the Obama administration wants toward amnesty?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading what ya'll have to say.

I Vote Democrat because . . .

With Nic's permission, I'm posting something I saw on his blog that I knew that Creighton would get a kick out of :) I'm fully expecting a top 10 list for voting Republican in response ... this should be fun.
I Vote Democrat because ...

10. I believe oil companies' 4% profits on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

9. I believe the government would do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

8. I believe Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

7. I'm too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

6. I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in 10 years if I don't start driving a Prius.

5. I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies as long as we keep all the death row inmates alive.

4. I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

3. I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as Democrats see fit.

2. I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

1. My head is planted so firmly up my a$$ that it's unlikely I'll ever have another point of view.

Here's the link to the source.

America the Beautiful

After spending 10 days outside of the United States for the first time in my life in Peru, there's a few things I've taken for granted that I think is appropriate for this blog.

1. I think we have a pretty good balance of private sector / public or government funded programs here that make the quality of life better for more people. I spent several days in villages outside of Cuzco high in the Andes mountains. These people did not pay taxes, and also didn't receieve anything from the government. The villages surrounding Cuzco and even Cuzco itself had little organization, poor infrastructure, and very little government regulation. There was some public education but it seemed to me to be more under the control of local people and certainly didn't have access to funding like we do here in the U.S. It made me appreciate my own public education, the flat, organized, paved roads I can drive on, and the libraries and schools I can go to.

2. There was very little government regulation in Peru especially in regards to food and water safety that made it dangerous to eat and drink anything. Half our expedition came down with food poisoning, and lots of children out in the villages had parasites, even Hepatitis A that came from eating and drinking contaminated sources. While we do have some of those issues here, it certainly is a lot less. It's comforting to know there are company, industry, and government standards for food safety that make most of our food and water disease-free and safe to consume. That was a luxury not enjoyed in Peru.

3. Oddly enough I gained an appreciation for social security and medicare while there. I do hospice work and the people I take care of all are on Medicare and Social Security. There are no programs like that in Peru, and people really suffer for it. We saw lots of elderly people who suffered severe arthritis who were still working just because they had no choice. They had no access to health care (other than us), and no such thing as retirement. They retired when they died. So while these programs may be in trouble here in the U.S., I still think they are good, and provide a safety net for people to fall on.

In conclusion I just have to say that I love the United States and I'm not sure why I'm lucky enough to be a citizen here and have the opportunities I do. It makes me feel like I have those opportunities specifically to help others that might not. I think we all do. For those of you that have spent time out of the country, what did you feel?