Claiming libertarian thought as extremist is common in today's political scene. Not only is it common, it is popular and no wonder. Our political landscape is filled with non-philosophies, none of the seemingly most popular political opinions expressed in the major media have any genuine guiding principles, they are orphans and half philosophies without anything guiding them besides visceral and gut reactions to situations, whatever feels good or right. Libertarian thought in times of confusion or dissension amongst proponents, it is not only possible but expected upon them to go back to the guiding principles of individualism and liberty.
Liberty and individualism are not simply coming back in terms of popularity, there is no reemergence, the truth is that the two major political parties have abandoned them wholesale to the highest bidders. What you are seeing is not a resurgence but a reaction, a pure reaction to the propaganda machine we call the "mainstream" having completely abandoned any concept of the importance of personal liberty. They have abandoned this concept because they are only capable of spewing forth that which is approved by their monopolist owners and sponsors. These monopolist owners and sponsors have only been allowed to become so through government, and only through large government that intervenes in the marketplace. The only enemies of large government lie in the principles of the ultimate importance of the individual, to a society addicted to large government and monopolist corporations, the importance of the individual is very much indeed extremist. They are the disease and Libertarian thought and philosophy is the cure.
They will call us "ultra-conservative" or "far right wing" but this is completely untrue. It is a common misconception, even amongst libertarians, that conservative politics or that GOP, the American Republican party have been recently subverted from within, that their goals, those of the right-wing have always been for small and limited government, this is untrue, certain elements of libertarianism since the 1950's have done their best to instill the philosophy of the importance of the individual into that particular party. It's obvious that it has not taken hold and has in fact failed. To quote T. Alexander Smith in his book, Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies, from page 30, "right-wing movements" are "social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values" as compared to left-wing movements which seek "greater equality or political participation". Far right-wing philosophies include those of fascism and nationalism and they advocate, in simplest terms, societal stratification and protectionism of industry and trade. The neo-conservative movement is not a subversion of the conservative arm of politics, it is in fact a reassertion of the base tyrannical and extremist tenants of conservatism, the natural inheritor of all things conservative and right-wing.
That bastion of Libertarian and liberal thought, Thomas Jefferson put it most eloquently in a letter to John Adams when he said, "I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society." Essentially, it is complete averse to the principles of the individual and liberty to allow the propagation and, furthermore, support "structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values." Indeed, it should be noted that, in every definition and foundation of these two philosophies of libertarianism and right-wing or conservative politics, that they are pure and natural enemies, truly incapable of resolving their differences and those who place any importance on the individual will do themselves and their allies the greatest favor by avoiding aligning or defining their politics as right-wing.
Right-wing politics advocates force and manipulation of society by government.
The Democrats and those in the "left-wing", particularly the "far left-wing" composed of communists are committed to the altar of egalitarian society, though, unlike Thomas Jefferson, they do not believe that it is possible for the rise of a natural generational aristocracy in a truly free market, they believe in the application of force through government as much if not more than those in the right-wing. Though they seem to forget their denial of this possibility of the rise of a natural aristocracy when they vote on bail outs on those corporations failing but "too big to fail". There is a complete disconnect between their philosophy and the application of it. The principle does not guide them in action, it only sets it forth, the "end justifies the means" as is often said. They are too reliant upon these huge corporations and the funding they get from them. They have a lot to lose in terms of elections if they do not appease the corporations. If they do not appease these corporations, there are thousands of others willing to take their place in the hopes that they might be able to make a difference here and there, they see it as a small price to pay instead of a complete reversal on their philosophy. In reality, though, why should they see it as a reversal on their philosophy? Their philosophy is completely reliant upon large government and five huge corporations are easier to maintain and control as opposed to several thousand medium sized companies or millions of small groups. Their philosophy needs control, it needs to be able to to "maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values" in order to impose the force necessary to guarantee their dream of an egalitarian society. So, in their major motivators in and of actions those in the "left-wing" are in fact "right-wing".
Would you trust a complete stranger walking down your street to responsibly disperse and utilize a couple thousand dollars of your money? Obviously not, if you would, you are a fool, pure and simple. So why are you compelled to reason that this same person would be more trustworthy two thousand miles away with an official sounding title? This is why they must use force, in the form of threat of imprisonment in order to get most people to pay their taxes. Some people can be convinced with some allusion of patriotism toward government, but these same left-wing politicians will often perform a complete reversal in their condemnation of nationalism as a tool of right-wing fascism. A forced and direct income tax is not simply wrong, it is a crime. In fact, the only possible definition of a crime is in force, the same force advocated by both major American political parties. A tax based upon use, whereby that tax is appropriated purely for the maintenance of said service, is fine and not a crime, though questionable if said service would not be better left to the private sectors, anything worth paying for is better left to competitive private organizations. A tax that is direct and based upon a percentage of income of a person's labor is fine if it is voluntary. The only issue is in force.
The government threatening you with imprisonment if you do not hand over money is no different than an armed robbery. It is no different from a person putting a gun in your face and threatening taking your life or a portion of your life if you do not submit to their request, whether that be robbery, rape or otherwise. Government loves the idea of the dollar, of printed money, because it removes the true intimacy that exists between an individual and her property. Money is nothing but a representation of your labor, labor is nothing but an extension of your time, energy and efforts. Your time, energy and efforts are a portion of your life, which is a completely limited resource owned wholly by you and nobody else. When you submit to a coercive government that threatens the loss of a larger portion of your life (imprisonment) in return for a smaller portion of your life (a couple thousand dollars a year), you are a victim. Government force is a crime and you are a victim of that force. The only legitimate and civilized interaction between people is that which is voluntary and consensual. The only definition of crime is in the forced compunction or removal of a portion of an individual's life.
To espouse force in any form is to espouse crime. Both wings of our current political landscape espouse crime. The only extremists are those that would be involved with or espouse crime. The only moderates are those that do not advocate the use of force or government crime. The only true moderates in the American political landscape are those who are libertarian minded and respect the importance and ultimate sovereignty of the individual, her ownership of all portions of her life and her right to partake of any and all voluntary interaction in which she sees fit.
No comments:
Post a Comment