What Do Libertarians Believe In That Works?

By Rich Kozlovich

Over the years I've been impressed, amused, but mostly confused by libertarians.  Are they conservatives? Are they liberals? Are they leftists?   Yes, they are, and where they fall on an issue depends on the issue.  That's what drives everyone crazy.   Their consistent lack of consistency. 

• They're conservative on economics.
• They're really big on individual freedom.
  
•  That freedom isn't predicated on any absolute solid moral foundation other than you should be able to live your life as you see fit.  But that lifestyle doesn't include crime and violence against others.  That would be strictly prohibited.  
• They don't want to be forced to pay for your lifestyle, nor do they wish to pay for the consequences of your life style if it should turn out negatively.   Your choice, your responsibility.
  
• They believe our conscience should be our guide.
• Liberal on social issues, including abortion. They want government out of that matter entirely feeling it should be a conscience matter whether or not to murder their unborn children.
• As far as I can tell they want to legalize all drugs. (Drug Legalization Is A Disaster)
  
• Other than all that, for the most part it all can be refined as " if you leave me alone and I will leave you alone", and government should only fix the roads.  

Admittedly, that part about the roads is an over simplification, but intellectually and emotionally, that's pretty much where they stand. 

One thing I've gleaned historically about these people who are economically conservative and socially liberal is this: Social issues will outweigh economic conservatism every time, and as long as they support all these leftist social issues conservative economics will go out the door.    

Let me throw in the usual obligatory caveat by saying there's much in their views I find emotionally appealing.  Intellectually and historically, not so much.   

Libertarian thinking reminds me very much of military strategies. Did you know that every military strategy ever planned was perfect?  Yes, it's true!  At least until they met the enemy.  And guess what?  The enemy also had a "perfect" plan in place. From that point on everything starts to fall apart for both of them.

The one most able to recognize the lack of perfection in their “perfect plan” and quickly adapts it to whatever difficulties the enemies “perfect plan” is causing, is the one who wins.

Libertarianism thinks in terms of basic fundamental morality; a morality that is foundation to the human makeup, hence their view, "let our conscience be our guide".  There's a reality imprinted in our makeup and governed by that force we call - conscience!    There are some universal values all humans throughout all the ages have shared, with instinctual prohibitions against stealing and violence.   However, people throughout the ages still robbed, stole, raped and murdered anyway.  So the only conclusion we can draw is the conscience is a stunningly imperfect guide.

The trouble with conscience as an absolute arbiter of right and wrong is the conscience can be changed, adjusted…..or…lets just say the conscience can be “trained”, for good or ill, and it can even be scarred by vile practices until it becomes so unfeeling there are no longer any boundaries on behavior.  Time and circumstance molds the conscience! 

If the entire world practiced the form of libertarianism as freedom to be left alone it would be very nice.  But what happens when someone decides they don't want to leave you alone because they just don't like you.  Or they won't leave you alone because they desire those things you or others may have that they don't, and they don't like the idea of working for them?

In spite of the governing morality imprinted on our conscience, The Ten Commandments apparently needed to be outlined as the ten "commandments", not ten "recommendations". Why? Because people will always find ways to rationalize their views to their own benefit.

As I started this I began to think about the Jews as they entered the Promised Land. What form of government did they have? None to speak of! The land was broken up into tribal areas, with tribal leaders.  Tribal areas were broken up into homesteads that became hereditary holdings. All predicated on the 613 commandments laid out in the Mosaic Law.  Sounds like a lot of law, but compared to federal regulations, it's chump change.

Even if they sold the land it was returned at some point in the future. But people were pretty much able to “do that which was right in their own eyes”.  What happened? They eventually demanded a king to rule over them, judge them, and defend them against foreign enemies, so they could be "like the nations around them."  Why?  Because everyone doing what was right in their own eyes isn't a formula for stability. 

Libertarianism is a philosophy that will be a moving intellectual and emotional force for conservatives, but not a stable force.  Libertarianism holds little appeal as a lasting, effective stand alone governing philosophy that will stand the test of time.  For libertarianism to work it would require people to become much more introspective and much less self serving.  That would have to be a universal social paradigm, and that ain't gonna happen.  

A Catholic priest once said:

"If you ever find the perfect organization, join it. However, once you have joined it; it is now become somewhat less than perfect!”

I have yet to find any flaw in that thought, because people will always be people.  

So what do Libertarians believe in that works as a societal construct?  Nothing.