This may come as a shock to many of my readers and may offend some political sensibilities, for what I am about to say is a criticism of Libertarianism. It should be noted that I am a Republican, and a reluctant one at that.
The Libertarian Party founded on Libertarian ideals, is still a political party nonetheless, which is not to say it is necessarily bad, but doesn't mean it is as benevolent a party as one could hope for.
The party platform is to rid government as much as possible.
This idea I am sympathetic to. It doesn't take a political scientist to witness the intrusions of government into our lives, or notice the money, time and effort wasted on failed government policies run through large, inefficient and slow bureaucracies administering a filtered down meaning of the original idea, often too little, too late and too expensive.
What I am not sympathetic to is the full replacement of vital government programs with private organizations, rather than a slashing of the government waste-line or serious reform.
For example, speaking on the environment, predictably blaming government for pollution and ineffectiveness, and special interests, the Libertarian Party sidesteps the whole issue and promotes the idea of turning over National Parks to the Audubon Society. Well, if handing huge chunks of land over to private organizations is contrary to special interest, I really don't know what would be more tempting to a corrupt politician.
And say the Audubon Society runs our Parks better, would they continue to be our Parks, because that would negate the concept of private over government. Let's assume the Libertarians had regulated the new private management of Parks to include public use, wouldn't our public use be excessively hindered by a private organization, who inherently had more rights to such land than of the government, of and for the People? Yet, the Libertarians claim to represent the ideology most closely aligned with the founder's intentions. So does every party.
I'm not always an absolutist, and would like to have the option to roam free on public lands, to hunt, fish, camp, hike, or 4-wheel. Replacing the management of public lands from an organization of and for the People, with a private organization would inevitably result in a balance of rights struggle, a struggle that is not necessary.
From this reasoning, questions immediately surface: who should manage the public roads, or the schools or anything not delegated by the Constitution. Which private organization would best represent the public, or for that matter, are they obligated to serve the public's interest? Even if we could answer those questions, who is to decide.
The Libertarian Party completely avoids the abortion debate. In party politics, especially in our two party winner-take-all system, sensitive issues are vaguely addressed if not ignored as to not alienate important voting blocs. It is reality, and it is cowardice. There is no doubt that a beating heart of the human fetus is the beating heart of a small living person. Such a person is already alive and thus has a right, according to our founders, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Of course it is up to you to accept the intention of our founders, or to take on one that diminishes the importance of the unborn. In this regard, power politics has taken a priority over principle and therefore, motive is hidden.
Another problem:The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.
This opens a can of worms. Unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration. How soon one forgets the perils of disease, or the contagious cancer of hate-ideology. The Libertarian would accept a devastating nuclear attack because it wouldn't commit the effort to prevent it through the much-dreaded alliances, or even worse, the thought of pre-emptive action against an inevitable, not necessarily imminent threat. This is largely an absolutist position, holding the rights of every individual, over the the right to self-defense, or life. There will come a time when one must choose with little foresight and weighty consequence, to side with life and nation, or of the foe.
I would choose life and nation every time hands down -no hesitation.
Another problem I have is with the Libertarian's proposal to downsize the military considerably. In a free and democratic society, a volunteer army proves most effective, and is most compatible with such principles. Yet to downsize our military would mean to render its combat effectiveness generally less able, and the nation less prepared. If a major war should knock on our door, and the need for more troops presents itself, we would need to impose a draft with a Libertarian army, which needless to say would be contrary to its principles. And it is common knowledge that a professional volunteer army is more morally acceptable than having conscripted soldiers forced to fight; the will is stronger, morale is better sustained, and freedom is less jeopardized.
One more problem I will mention is with the following:Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. Sexuality or gender should have no impact on the rights of individuals.
Yet absent from this is whether or not government has the right to acknowledge definitions. As it acknowledged certain rights, certain freedoms, enumerated in the Amendments to the Constitution, and some acknowledged by courts which were not enumerated.
Can Marriage as it is and has been historically defined by a vast majority around the world, especially amongst the cultures inside the United States, be acknowledged? Granted no government consented to govern from the people can assume authority to define or outlaw such a significant cultural act preceding its existence, but acknowledgement of common practices is authorized. Banning gay marriage is arguably unconstitutional, but to not acknowledge gay marriage by acknowledging the traditional definition, is clearly withing the authority of the government, especially if it is the will of the people. The Libertarian Party tends to think otherwise for whatever reason.
I do lean Libertarian for reasons of limited government and individual liberty, and absolutely correct on the Second Amendment, but to support wholly the Libertarian Party itself is to support a multi-faction-pacifying political party, and I am unable to do that.
Much of the information used was found at the Libertarian National Committee's site.
Note: I'm not saying the Republicans are much better either.
If you like it, link it | 1 Comment:
I can understand your views; though I consider myself as being somewhat libertarian, I do not consider myself a Libertarian, or subscribe to the party line. Seems to me that the main idea of libertarianism was individualism, not just forming another party. Libertarianism, like *ALL* political idealogies, does not work in its pure form. All political systems make the assumptions that everyone is intelligent, honest, and motivated. Any workable system can only be an approximation of the ideal, with some other elements of other idealogies in the mix.
BobG
http://fromthesaltycity.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment