I regret not being able to post a new article this week. Please check back in a few days.
Until then, you might take a look at the lengthy exchange with our friend Bartleby in last week's comments.
:)-K
2006-02-12
2006-02-02
Control
I face a persistent misunderstanding when talking to people about our society, our government and politics. People reflexively assume that I intend to impose my particular worldview on them and the rest of society. So they are defensive and unreceptive to the concepts I am eager to share. It becomes a contest over "your way" or "my way" – they are not looking for a win-win solution. While extremely annoying and frustrating to me, it is no longer surprising. After years of reflection, I have come to terms with this barrier to sharing the freedom mindset.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. Our whole system is based on the lust for power – it is consistent with the primal animal drive in the human condition. Democracy is an orderly form of mob rule, where might is right – this is a horrible method and means. So horrible that once you look beyond your own fear and let your head clear, you may wonder how you ever tolerated, advocated and participated in such a wretched process. This is the crucial gap between having a genuine orientation toward freedom and rights and having most any other view. It puts modern liberals and conservatives on the same side of the fence; it does not matter that their goals may differ slightly. While appearing civil, they sustain the barbarism that is our legacy as a species. They have in common a belief that imposing their will, their lifestyle, their value system, their judgement on other people is a legitimate use of power – we believe otherwise.
We believe it is wrong to impose with force one’s views on others. This principle is essential to a freedom orientation, so those of us who hold this principle are not trying to impose our will or views on you. However, the public’s mindset is so focused on power and the control of others, they assume that we are trying to take away "their way" of life and impose "our way" on them. Might is right – that is the only way most people know – it is the way they expect us to be.
We promote the use of non-violent means to accomplish social goals. We believe that violence and the threat of it in any form is revolting. We understand force is sometimes necessary and appropriate. Even so, we believe every new use of force must be a choice of last resort – every peaceful and voluntary means must be exhausted first. Whether on a local or world scale, we are not strictly doves or hawks. We are pragmatic and support the use of force in response to force or in response to fraud, which is an intellectual form of assault.
This principle on force is the unfortunate crux of the divide among libertarians regarding the Iraq War. I believe we all share the same philosophy on force and non-violence. We only disagree whether military action in Iraq is a plausible response to direct violence or a credible threat of it, or if it is an act of vengeance that has no connection to an ongoing threat. We would be hypocrites to advocate acting as the world’s police force, imposing our values and will where there is no threat to the people of the United States. Therefore, pro-war libertarians believe Iraq is an immediate and continuing threat. Anti-war libertarians believe that the war is retaliatory and punitive, rather than offering any real protection.
Regardless, libertarians agree it is wrong to tell others how to live their lives, and it is uncharacteristic for us to force this or any view on society. As such any form of collectivism might exist in a society founded on individual liberty and natural rights. This is because people who believe in individual liberty respect the right of people to band together and share their resources in any way they choose. My marriage is an example of just such a voluntary affiliation. Pat and I may be libertarians, but our household is communist; we each give according to our ability, take according to our needs and put the good of our relationship above our individual interests. It is our choice. It is given freely. Had we forcibly imposed on each other the burden of our needs and demanded the other’s abilities, resentment would be the natural consequence.
In contrast, a collectivist viewpoint is inherently antagonistic towards expressions of individualism. Individual freedom cannot be permitted in a collectivist society, where the needs of the many are valued over the rights of the few. I am talking to you Democrats and you Republicans – if you turn to expedient government solutions before exhausting private ones, you are advocating collectivism. You are looking to impose by force your idealized way of life on everyone. You can’t realize your vision and allow people to pursue their own vision; your vision involves controlling them. You will tolerate only so much failure and you will permit only so much success. So you invite government to regulate every aspect of our lives to ensure mediocrity, limiting both failure and success. When we fail miserably you will force your aid on us, including providing medical treatment if we are injured or ill. You could not allow us to suffer, even if we never contributed towards a medical plan and we claimed no entitlement to such services – you would not let us die if we begged you to. Even your charity is oppressive. When we succeed too blatantly, you must diminish that success, because that would allow some individuals to have more influence than others have. It is also necessary to take away the "excess" fruits of our enterprise in order to alleviate all the suffering you won’t tolerate.
This is the worldview that the Republicans, Democrats and statists of all stripes are collaborating to cram down our throats. For them government is not about keeping the peace and defending the natural rights of individuals. It is not about creating an open society where people have the choice to collaborate or not and succeed or fail. How do we, as libertarians make our voice heard, that we want to be left to our own devices, without being politically active? There are other ways to get our message out. This article is one of them, but political action seems an obvious choice. Silence is considered our consent to the will of the majority. Unfortunately, participating and losing is also taken as our consent, but we don’t always loose; we do have some influence. More important is that politics is entangled with the use of force and a controlling mindset, which are contrary to our ideals. When we speak out politically as Libertarians, people assume that we wish to control others and force our ways on society. That is the nature of politics – intellectualized barbarism – it is similar to fraud, the other form of intellectualized violence.
Libertarians do not want to prevent you from collaborating with others. We believe it should be your choice to pool your liabilities and assets as well as your contributions and demands. We simply want the choice not to. As much as we believe that a liberty mindset is empowering and beneficial to all, we would not force on you a preconceived vision of how you should run your life. We want only to be left to our own devices. That includes reducing our compulsory contributions and limiting our entitlement to government services to the basics – sort of a "basic cable TV" version of government – public access, news and local channels, but no HBO, no Showtime, etc. – public roads, highways, police and military, but no Medicare, no Social Security, etc. This pay-as-you-go system is what I call "opting out", a concept I will continue to explore.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. Our whole system is based on the lust for power – it is consistent with the primal animal drive in the human condition. Democracy is an orderly form of mob rule, where might is right – this is a horrible method and means. So horrible that once you look beyond your own fear and let your head clear, you may wonder how you ever tolerated, advocated and participated in such a wretched process. This is the crucial gap between having a genuine orientation toward freedom and rights and having most any other view. It puts modern liberals and conservatives on the same side of the fence; it does not matter that their goals may differ slightly. While appearing civil, they sustain the barbarism that is our legacy as a species. They have in common a belief that imposing their will, their lifestyle, their value system, their judgement on other people is a legitimate use of power – we believe otherwise.
We believe it is wrong to impose with force one’s views on others. This principle is essential to a freedom orientation, so those of us who hold this principle are not trying to impose our will or views on you. However, the public’s mindset is so focused on power and the control of others, they assume that we are trying to take away "their way" of life and impose "our way" on them. Might is right – that is the only way most people know – it is the way they expect us to be.
We promote the use of non-violent means to accomplish social goals. We believe that violence and the threat of it in any form is revolting. We understand force is sometimes necessary and appropriate. Even so, we believe every new use of force must be a choice of last resort – every peaceful and voluntary means must be exhausted first. Whether on a local or world scale, we are not strictly doves or hawks. We are pragmatic and support the use of force in response to force or in response to fraud, which is an intellectual form of assault.
This principle on force is the unfortunate crux of the divide among libertarians regarding the Iraq War. I believe we all share the same philosophy on force and non-violence. We only disagree whether military action in Iraq is a plausible response to direct violence or a credible threat of it, or if it is an act of vengeance that has no connection to an ongoing threat. We would be hypocrites to advocate acting as the world’s police force, imposing our values and will where there is no threat to the people of the United States. Therefore, pro-war libertarians believe Iraq is an immediate and continuing threat. Anti-war libertarians believe that the war is retaliatory and punitive, rather than offering any real protection.
Regardless, libertarians agree it is wrong to tell others how to live their lives, and it is uncharacteristic for us to force this or any view on society. As such any form of collectivism might exist in a society founded on individual liberty and natural rights. This is because people who believe in individual liberty respect the right of people to band together and share their resources in any way they choose. My marriage is an example of just such a voluntary affiliation. Pat and I may be libertarians, but our household is communist; we each give according to our ability, take according to our needs and put the good of our relationship above our individual interests. It is our choice. It is given freely. Had we forcibly imposed on each other the burden of our needs and demanded the other’s abilities, resentment would be the natural consequence.
In contrast, a collectivist viewpoint is inherently antagonistic towards expressions of individualism. Individual freedom cannot be permitted in a collectivist society, where the needs of the many are valued over the rights of the few. I am talking to you Democrats and you Republicans – if you turn to expedient government solutions before exhausting private ones, you are advocating collectivism. You are looking to impose by force your idealized way of life on everyone. You can’t realize your vision and allow people to pursue their own vision; your vision involves controlling them. You will tolerate only so much failure and you will permit only so much success. So you invite government to regulate every aspect of our lives to ensure mediocrity, limiting both failure and success. When we fail miserably you will force your aid on us, including providing medical treatment if we are injured or ill. You could not allow us to suffer, even if we never contributed towards a medical plan and we claimed no entitlement to such services – you would not let us die if we begged you to. Even your charity is oppressive. When we succeed too blatantly, you must diminish that success, because that would allow some individuals to have more influence than others have. It is also necessary to take away the "excess" fruits of our enterprise in order to alleviate all the suffering you won’t tolerate.
This is the worldview that the Republicans, Democrats and statists of all stripes are collaborating to cram down our throats. For them government is not about keeping the peace and defending the natural rights of individuals. It is not about creating an open society where people have the choice to collaborate or not and succeed or fail. How do we, as libertarians make our voice heard, that we want to be left to our own devices, without being politically active? There are other ways to get our message out. This article is one of them, but political action seems an obvious choice. Silence is considered our consent to the will of the majority. Unfortunately, participating and losing is also taken as our consent, but we don’t always loose; we do have some influence. More important is that politics is entangled with the use of force and a controlling mindset, which are contrary to our ideals. When we speak out politically as Libertarians, people assume that we wish to control others and force our ways on society. That is the nature of politics – intellectualized barbarism – it is similar to fraud, the other form of intellectualized violence.
Libertarians do not want to prevent you from collaborating with others. We believe it should be your choice to pool your liabilities and assets as well as your contributions and demands. We simply want the choice not to. As much as we believe that a liberty mindset is empowering and beneficial to all, we would not force on you a preconceived vision of how you should run your life. We want only to be left to our own devices. That includes reducing our compulsory contributions and limiting our entitlement to government services to the basics – sort of a "basic cable TV" version of government – public access, news and local channels, but no HBO, no Showtime, etc. – public roads, highways, police and military, but no Medicare, no Social Security, etc. This pay-as-you-go system is what I call "opting out", a concept I will continue to explore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)