|
|
I admit to a rather warped perspective in general, and I attribute much of it to my exposure at a very early age (pre-puberty) to the works of Robert A. Heinlein. His fantastic worlds of extremely rugged individualists appealed emphatically to my burgeoning male ego. It took me many years to realize that his characters were cut from whole cloth and that he was basically telling the same story over and over. It took me even longer to realize that his implicit political philosophy (TANSTAAFL!) was far too simplistic to be achievable. By high school, I had been seduced by Ayn Rand, and I entered college as a militant libertarian/objectivist. I fought hard to promote my philosophy amidst the swarming "statists" on campus, writing editorials for the student newspaper and hosting the LP presidential candidate. But eventually I saw that "they" were right about some things, and that the libertarians were mostly all wet.
I have come to believe that the middle path is generally the wiser. Rigid attachment to beliefs leads to unnecessary conflict. I have found that in associating with libertarians and reading their literature (Reason, Liberty, The Freeman, etc.) that there is almost no appreciation for moderation in the libertarian movement. I find extremists frightening, especially when they staunchly support the "right to bear arms" without compromise.
The ideal of laissez-faire is very seductive, especially to ambitious entepreneurs, but it ignores the plain fact that private institutions like corporations can be just as tyrannical as governments. Moreover, our government in the U.S. is, at least in principle, constrained by the constitution and the voters. Corporations in the absence of government regulation would be unbounded authoritarian structures. They are already, in my humble opinion, far more oppressive to our citizens than any government entity. The rank and file of our citizenry are constrained to participate in an economy that is essentially shaped by corporate interests that are consolidating their power in fewer and fewer hands. Without the hand of government to limit private power, we end up with effective slavery: sweat-shops, company towns, no collective bargaining, and a life with few choices for most.
The libertarians like to say that taxation is theft, but they gloss over the simple truth that property is theft. All private property is necessarily grounded in the "initiation of force," the great libertarian anathema. If you own land, you have received stolen property. I prefer to think of myself as a steward of land, not its owner, and as such there are reasonable restrictions on how I may use it. In a more enlightened world, we would all understand that the earth belongs to no one, and that its abundance is available for all. Until that happens, we need government to keep the bastards from hoarding it all.
|
|
|