Today Dougy-boy asks how you define a libertarian. Having been "accused" by several media outlets and a plethora of useful idiots; I'm gonna drop some knowledge on these guys - if Dougy Carswell isn't a libertarian he's the most confused conservative I know, along with his pal, Dan.
The wikipedia entry on the subject describes it thusly:
"Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty and minimize or abolish the state. There are a number of libertarian view points, ranging from anarchist to small government, and from anti-property to pro-property. The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian."
Seems pretty clear; libertarians are against authoritarianism; the arguements start coming when you realise that authority can be exercised in so many ways as to legitimately overide independance that the arguements start coming - the differences between anarcho-libertarian and minarchism, for example.
Me? I recall promising in JuliaM's comments some time ago that I would extol the virtues of a party that champions libertarianism. This seems like a better time to identify my own philosphy on liberty.
My life, how I choose to conduct it and what I choose to acquire and dispense with is my own business; problems arise in the natural order of things when the consensus believes otherwise - we have had over a century of this now and it has reduced a glorious nation (with many faults I grant you) to near ruination.
I am not interested in reviving the empire - that would betray a desire to rule over man without consent; I am only interested in gaining control over my own life, and knowing how badly I have stewarded it in the past I have passed it on to a better steward: Christ. My life, my personal choice. Its sad to me that so many fellow libertarians reject this ultimate liberty, but I understand their choice and hope to be a good enough example to show them there's a better way; having struggled for years, backsliding I can no more feel angry about others decisions anymore than I can force them to "convert" (from what?). I just hope. And pray.
I dont share all of Mr. Ryan's views in the video above by a long shot; I do however believe that at its core libertarianism reflects the most important gift that God has given any of us: choice. People make bad choices, and there should be intervention when those choices wash over onto others lives and fortunes without consent. What makes up for the wrong choices are the right ones; one of the most insideous claims of the looter classes are that a libertarian government would leave people sick and dying on the street, would leave the poor to the wolves, children uneducated and brow-beaten - I hate to tell you this but we have those things now, and they are getting worse, with every step taken to remediate the problem by the looter class it gets worse.
The problem has never been a lack of money or resources - it is a lack of personal input. Which brings me to my final thought on what libertarianism is; it is voluntary fraternity, it is friendly societies helping the unemployed, it is a stranger walking up to a man sick and dying in the street, picking them up and tending to them - all of their own volition.
So when someone tells you we need the NHS, the welfare state or a big government they are really saying:
"Cant someone else do it?"
I say in return:
"No - but you can".
An interesting post, Mr Tomrat. And one I strongly agree with.
ReplyDeleteI am, however, intrigued when you write "the most important gift that God has given any of us: choice."
I must confess that I find it hard to think of choice as a "gift" from God. I see it much more as a responsibility.
Who can read the challenge that Moses gives to the children of Israel in chapters 27 to 30 of Deuteronomy, and then come to the words "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life" without feeling that choice is not an absolutely awesome responsibility?
YMB,
ReplyDeleteAll boils down to matter of perspective. I've chosen life.
I like to consider myself a libertarian in part - but my politics is more complex than that. I'm also a nationalist and a conervative. The vital thing is getting the balance right between the various political philosophies to achieve the overall best result. That is something we more or less had when we were still a predominantly Christian nation, but the more secularised we become the less restriction there is on observing traditional moral behaviour. I'm not demanding that every one become Christian - just the acceptance that traditional Christian morality is the basis for acceptable behaviour for all people. I've alwyas maintained that the rule of law can not be maintained if you do not have this baseline morality. It becomes a state where it is not what is considered right or proper to do that guides behaviour, but what you believe you can get away with.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the more people get away with unacceptable behaviour the more people are encouraged to behave the same way. The "if he can do it, why can't I?" belief.
As a nationalist I believe the state is not only necessary, but - when managed correctly - a wholly good thing - but I also believe that the scope of the state should be strictly limited. Up until fairly recently it was - by various instruments such as Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill Of Rights. It's only in recent years where various documents have been introduced which, while ostensibly limiting the state actually define the limits of the individual by doing so - I refer to, amongst others, the ECHR and Human Rights Act of course.
Finally, I believe that while a nation state is both desirable and essential, I also believe that real government power should be retained by the people and that this is best achieved through localisation - decentralising government. I think it is fine for the national governemt to set a "framework" for national policy, but that how that policy is implemented should be decided at local level. The first duty of the national government is to protect and defend the lives and livelihoods of the people of that nation - not to decide when and where their bin is emptied.
Sorry about that - it's just that I think it's far more complicated than most libertarians believe.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStan
ReplyDeleteI like to consider myself a libertarian in part - but my politics is more complex than that. I'm also a nationalist and a conervative.That is both the beauty of libertarian philosophy; it doesn't matter what you believe, only that you recognise that it is you who believes it and that, if your actions lead to the best outcome, then it will be copied and lead to best practices all round.
That is something we more or less had when we were still a predominantly Christian nation, but the more secularised we become the less restriction there is on observing traditional moral behaviour. I'm not demanding that every one become Christian - just the acceptance that traditional Christian morality is the basis for acceptable behaviour for all people.This is where I diverge in opinion Stan; Christian "morality" has been used as an excuse for all kinds of evil throughout the centuries, by Catholics, Protestants, Baptists and every other niche clique of my religion for centuries - it is one thing I happen to agree with secularists on. We should be attentive to God's will in our lives, not to someones elses empty protestations about what is right and what is wrong; this can manifest itself in many different ways, whether they are from individual conscience or from divine inspiration, either way, it is our duty to seek his will. Morality is our hearts desire in action - we should be sore to want to transplant it.
The reason I mention this here is because it is important to realise that we were successful in the past because the majority of people chose "best practice" when it came to their spiritual selves and were blessed richly; we lost it when noble ideas such as welfare for your fellow man, caring for the sick and loving your neighbour become something we had to do rather than something we did do; imposed morality is no morality at all - the good will out.
It's only in recent years where various documents have been introduced which, while ostensibly limiting the state actually define the limits of the individual by doing so - I refer to, amongst others, the ECHR and Human Rights Act of course.Documents, which at their heart define morality, rather than do it; documents like the Magna Carter and the 1689 bill of rights guaranteed rights, rather than enforced wrongs.
Sorry about that - it's just that I think it's far more complicated than most libertarians believe.You dont have a monopoly on long, arduous comments Stan. ;-)
I would say to that above all else this is the only thing you have dead wrong - it really is as simple as that, otherwise, how could everyone understand it? A belief is not useful to anyone if it cannot be understood by everyone; I may not know much about the complexities of libertarian thinking but I know the outcomes of true freedom and, less importantly the consequences of infringing on it, even when it may not suit us.