As Ron Paul hangs around or advances in the polls as a potential Republican Party nominee for President; the ideas and concepts behind Libertarianism as a political philosophy deserve to come under greater examination. Just exactly how do some of the ideas that seem to be appealing on first glance actually work when applied to the vast canvas that is the current complex American governmental society? Actually while it may be true that Libertarianism and the American democratically elected representative republican form of government may look like they are compatible in theory as being able to work together in some ways; in practice they aren’t the nice, neat, fit that works well to implement and/or enhance the concepts of the U.S. Constitution.
One could argue that when the Constitution was written it was meant to be complimentary to the rugged individualism which Libertarianism says it encompasses. But in fact the framers of the Constitution knew even over 200 years ago that the whole idea of many individual, local, state and regional interests would have to work in a highly cooperative manner in order for the United States to stay both together and free from domination by any other nation state. The key word in this country’s name is “united” not states. Individual states have grown and contracted in terms of their power and influence, as have whole regions of this country; but the sum total of this country has continued to expand in size, scope and power from day one. This is because the ever increasing number of states has been and remains “united” as one nation.
Libertarianism is about individual “freedom” from control of or required participation by an entity such as a nation. To a certain degree this country has incorporated the concept of individual freedom into its laws; but it has also abrogated absolute individual freedom from control or participation in many ways too. It is a basic concept of our form of government that there are requirements and responsibilities as well as freedoms that are part of the arrangement made between the government and its citizens; as long as the rules and regulations are established with the consent of the governed. That’s the part where democratic election of representatives comes in. As long as each of us has the same one vote, and everyone has that vote, a majority can give achieve providing the consent of the governed; as long as certain basic rights of the dissenting minority are respected. It may not be entirely simple when multiplied out by a hundred million voting individuals, but it still retains the original elegance of practicality. Or least it did until recently.
While basic majority rule with minority rights creates some conflict with the concept of the primacy of individual rights, as long as we recognized that in order to work; absolute freedom which is in conflict with the majority’s laws for the common good are a breaking of the social contract. The contract can at any time be revised, changed, augmented, etc, but while they stand, the laws of the land are just that; the law. And no amount of conviction in the rightness of one’s cause allows the laws to be broken at a cost to society in general just to satisfy any individual’s desires. As Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter eloquently stated; “the right of your fist ends at the tip of my nose”.
And so it is with any individual’s notion that implies that just because I don’t want the government telling me what to do or not do; I have a right to ignore the law. Most Libertarians get that notion pretty well. The confusion comes in when it becomes a matter of pitting the wishes of the society at large against their personal predilections; which have a negative impact on that society and are therefore proscribed or limited.
The obvious example is falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. It does in fact limit the free speech of the yeller; but it does so with the purpose of protecting the safety of all the other theater goers who might be needlessly trampled in a panic driven response to the yell. Some other examples, like laws which require a motorcyclist to wear a helmet, seem to be aimed at protecting the rider from their own stupidity. And thus by Libertarian standards; it is none of our (as represented by government) collective business if they want to risk serious injury or death by refusing to wear equipment that could save them from that fate. But in a society where (in theory at least) we all pay taxes, some of which are used to fund public hospitals; we all wind up paying for the seriously injured Libertarian rider if he doesn’t choose to wear a helmet or purchase health insurance.
Of course one could blithely say that if the rider has made that choice to risk their health without having health insurance; we, the taxpaying society have no obligation to cover the cost of their medical care. And that might possibly be okay with some Libertarian members of our taxpaying society, as well as even okay with the injured Libertarian rider; if they are willing to stand behind their Libertarian philosophy. We could just have someone at the emergency room door explain to the rider or his next of kin that the deal is; you have the right to ride without a helmet and insurance all you want, since it’s none of our business – but you don’t have the right be treated at this public hospital at public expense. You could even tell them there is a charity funded hospital in the next town that doesn’t turn away anyone (as long as the hospital has the resources). The injured rider and/or their family might be good Libertarians and thank you for the Charity hospital tip and go on their way; but it’s not very likely. When it comes to life and death, and anything people feel is comparably important to them; they are rarely actually willing to shrug their shoulders and accept the complete logic of “on your own” Libertarianism.
That isn’t the way we have collectively decided to do things in this country (so far) when it comes to life and death emergencies and many other things of less consequence. So in most cases planning on everyone sticking to a pure Libertarian policy and agenda isn’t really a good bet. That is especially true when it come to you or me or most other people. Very few people in this country are willing to take part in any part of the above Libertarian scenario. It would be hard to get volunteers to be the injured rider, their family or loved ones, or even the person at the door blocking their way into the emergency room. And if you can’t imagine yourself being the person blocking the emergency room to anyone who by chance or choice doesn’t have health insurance; you shouldn’t insist on strict Libertarian policies for the government. Even if you could get someone else to do the dirty work of turning away the injured rider expressing his “freedom” by helmetless, or the sick child whose parents can’t afford insurance, or the GenXer with appendicitis, who voted Libertarian so they could buy a great big flat screen instead of being mandated to have health insurance; every person being entirely responsible for taking care of all their needs at all times, while leaving the rest of us alone, isn’t the way this nation has structured the social contract.
The social contract as delineated in the very first paragraph of the U.S. Constitution includes the Federal government being charged with the responsibility (along with other duties) of securing the “general welfare” of Americans. The Founding Fathers, and throughout our history, most Americans believe that having the Federal government responsible for maintaining our “general welfare” is as much of a right of U.S. citizenship as having the Federal government protect; our freedom; our right to practice or not practice a religion; or any of the other enumerated protections the Constitution affords Americans. We have for over 200 years been defining and re-defining these rights to keep our government functional and able to perform its duties as we and the world have evolved and grown. The Constitution was meant to, and in the main has been, interpreted and re-interpreted to define the social contract between American citizens and the government they elect to represent them.
There are some people who currently see the need and believe that the U.S. Constitution, in its functioning as the country’s social contract includes; we, the people, can consent to give our government the right to provide adequate health and safety care for all our fellow citizens. These people are willing to have their government use some of their contributed tax dollars to take the care of some American citizens who don’t have the resources to pay their medical bills, or afford medical insurance, or don’t contribute enough to the Federal pool of funds to cover payment of their medical expenses. The willing, taxpaying, citizens are aware that only a very few of their fellow Americans are not kicking in because they are too selfish or lazy; but that the vast majority are contributing what they can; even if it isn’t very much because they are sick, or out of and unable to find work, or too young or too old to get a job, etc.
The resulting health care system would be the most cost efficient, highest quality, universally accessible, available anywhere in the world. It would legally make good health care for all Americans the “right” it has de facto become in our modern society. It would make health care, funded by our tax based, citizen wide, shared funding system; as standard, efficient and reliable for the American people as the universal, national, system of defense, we call the U.S. military. It would not preclude the addition of private medical insurance for those who wanted and could afford it, any more than having a first rate military precludes the hiring of private bodyguards for the rich and/or famous.
The same concepts of universality when it is applied to a national governmental approach to education, is another red flag to the Libertarian bulls. But in today’s world the typical employee may work for close to a dozen companies, in more than half a dozen different states, across their work career. Ask most employers and almost all workers which would they rather have; lower taxes and the cheapest public education a state can possibly cobble together or reasonable taxes and a universally high level of educated employee no matter where they went to school, California to New Hampshire or God forbid Texas or Mississippi? It’s also a heck of a lot easier to attract quality employees to where they know their kids will get a decent public education, rather than their having to pay for private schools. But the Libertarian say since it’s not mentioned in the Constitution, the Federal government can’t be involved in setting educational standards. And furthermore, each state has the right (if it wants to) to short change its residents and provide the most cut rate system they can squeeze past the voters. The net result is a state like Ron Paul’s Texas that boasts the highest job creation rate; but most of the jobs are at minimum wage or less; because half the work force is illegal immigrants and Texas leads the entire nation in percentage of students who don’t graduate from high school. The Libertarian zeal to exercise their “right” to the “freedom” to reject and/or fight Federal education standards has made Texas statistically the dumbest state in the union, and apparently they are darned proud of it.
Libertarians, by definition, pretty much across the board say they hate “big” government in every way, shape and form. But any and every time bad weather or bad luck including (but not limited to), forest fires, floods, hurricanes, industrial pollution and any other kind of natural or manmade disaster strikes; they want their local, county, state and above all the Federal government to have people there with checkbooks in hand ready to dole out big money to help them, before even the clouds roll by. When they are on the receiving end of getting economic cash benefits; then it’s “the bigger the better” as far as government is concerned. They don’t want Washington telling them they have to share their beachfront with the general public, but they sure as heck want Washington restoring the roads and beaches in their would be private paradise! And the same is true for highways, airports, rivers, ports and every other convenience they want available. Don’t let the Feds tell Libertarians how fast they can drive; but Feds can build those 5 million dollar a mile roads everywhere they want them.
The direction this country’s social contract flows, as far as most Libertarians are concerned, is strictly one way; towards them. The government can spend as much as they feel it needs to in order to protect them within the country’s borders; but nary a penny should go for foreign aid to either co-opt our enemies or support our allies, unless and until the preverbal wolf is at the door, threatening a narrow national interest; like oil under someone else’s desert. On economic issues the Libertarian commitment to low or no taxes is more or less summarized by the phrase; “I got mine, I don’t care about you”. When pushed on the apparent cold heartedness of their economic interpretation of the Constitution, Libertarian political candidates say; “Well there are charities and I think people should support them, if they want to”. Most off camera Libertarians say; “So what, or Not my problem”.
On the social issue front, surprisingly and amusingly Libertarians line up as close to the political left (mostly Democrats) as they do with the political right (almost all Republicans) on economic issues. The “leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone” attitude of Libertarianism logic puts them in the position of saying; “Smoke whatever you want, but I won’t pay your hospital bill.” Being consistent in their “My personal life is none of the governments business” attitude also puts them on the individual personal freedom side of family planning and women’s rights issues. It’s the “liber”, as in liberal. of Libertarianism, that puts them at odds with the political right in this country on many social issues and makes for confusing politics when it comes to limited government. The Libertarian paradigm puts them fore-square in support of women’s freedom of choice, gay right equality, decriminalizing drugs, and many other issues that puts them fore-square in opposition to much right-wing religious based “truths”. The Right wants to make these “truths” in laws which can tell all Americans; who they can and cannot marry; that they must bear a conceived child not matter what; that they can’t smoke this- but they can smoke, drink, or eat any of that; etc. Many Libertarians want their “rights” to be sacrosanct; but say your so-called “rights” are wrong, and illegal.
In many ways this idea of personal, limitless, Libertarianism (for some – but not all Americans) is virtually incompatible with America’s long traditions embodied in our egalitarian, representative, democratic, system of government. The unqualified sharing of proscribed freedoms, laws and conventions agreed upon by a majority (with respect for minority rights) and granting the power to enact and enforce these broad but limited rights to majority elected representatives, means you can’t do anything you want, any time you want, anywhere you want without regard to the wishes and well being of both the majority and the minority of your fellow citizens. That winds up being too much joining in of the sharing of responsibilities for most Libertarians. They want their rights and freedoms; but are unwilling to cooperate with or provide support to a government that is legally in place by the general agreement of their fellow citizens. Wanting personal freedom while not being willing to extend the same right to others or pay the price for having a government that provides and protects that freedom, is in a word; selfish!