I have considered myself a Libertarian. However, lately I have been reevaluating my political affiliations. On the Nolan scale I fall on the border of centrist and libertarian, with a slight lean right.
Through default, that has meant that I have voted Republican. The belief that I needed to fight back the forces from the left, and the Republicans historically have been that counterbalance. Now, it is hard to distinguish between the social justice party and the conservative party. That distinction is a thin purple line The lines have been blurred through the inevitable consolidation of power. Power they both wish to wield. This consequence has lead to a government that is self governed. Many would see this as a positive. I see this as the most dangerous form of government. At this point the governmental programs loses sight of it original intent and focuses on acquiring reason's, to maintain the need for the program. Now the program is not judged on the end result of the program, But on the need for the program. Add to that the concept of baseline budgeting, you have an ever expanding governmental programs that solve nothing. If any business only measured it results by need, there would never be any failed businesses. You can always find a need for goods or services. The trick is to fill that need in a cost effective way. If they lose sight of the costs and end goal of filling that need at a competitive price, they cease to function in a rational way.
That is why I do not associate with any political party anymore. Even the Libertarians have become unappealing. This is not because of the lack of strength of numbers, But from the ideological purity they try to maintain. Yes, they represent the true balance against the social justice party. However, in a world of over 6 billion, interaction with others is inevitable.
To be honest, like most people I do enjoy some of the benefits of living in a stable society. One of the benefits is that I can go to sleep at night with the reasonable expectation that my family or I will not be massacred in the night by roaming bandits, mobs, governmental, or insurgent forces. I know this is only an illusion. Which is why I would not give up the right to defend myself. However, the reality is that if this happens, it will be a statistical anomaly or from societal breakdown, and not a normal course of events in most of America. That is one benefit of a stable society. To maintain this, I have to ceded some part of my liberty and treasure. Like, I can not mow my yard naked might be one liberty I have given up. The question is always how much am I willing to trade for the benefit of a society? And that price differs widely between people.
The biggest argument against Libertarianism is the statement. “No man is an island.” I do not agree with this statement. A person can survive and even be happy living alone. However, to reach their full potential they may need to rely on interdependence with other people. This interdependence allows the individual to focus on their strengths without being consumed trying provide all the necessities of existence. A person alone may be able to build a simple mode of conveyance, Many people will claim they can build a car from scratch. Not to denigrate their resourcefulness and abilities, but, this is also a fallacy. They are not counting all of the tools, base material, or parts that were made by someone else. It would take a lifetime for one person to acquire, smelt and form the metal needed to build the tools to build a car. Let alone the actual materials to build the car. This is done through the efficiencies of interdependence.
- The Miner focuses on Mining.
- The Founder focuses on creating alloys
- The Toolmaker focuses on creating tools
- The the automaker focuses on creating autos.
This is a simple example, it allows each group to focus on an achievable goal without having to learn and master a new trade. This should lead to better and cheaper products in a non coercive environment. Each person then takes the fruits of their labor to provide them with the necessities and other goods they wish to acquire. After all, none of the groups in this example specialised in food.
That is why my closest political affiliation now is the Tea Party. Sure there are subgroups within this collection of individuals. However, I see this group as more aligned to saying, stop, what is the objective for the federal government? We are tired of your unwinnable wars on vague concepts. Like the War on Poverty.
What is poverty? It is the uneven distribution of goods and services. All societies are pyramids, even the socialist utopia. There will always be a few people at the top, and over two thirds of the masses will be spread across the base at various levels.
Does poverty exist in America? Yes.
Will social programs eliminate poverty? No, they can only temporarily alleviate the physical symptoms of poverty. Only the person in poverty and those in the local community, have the true ability to help this person overcome this barrier.
Is there a starving child in America tonight? I believe there may be thousands.
Will taxing me or even taxing the rich more feed this starving child? No, only the people within the local community have the ability to feed and protect this child. Taking more money from me to send to D.C. will not alleviate this child's suffering, it only feeds the power of Washington.
Why do we believe we need a top down approach to handle problem’s. That never works, the people at the top are isolated from the problem. The only way to fix a problem is from the bottom up. That means returning the power back to the local communities. Some communities may fail, But those that succeed will provide a good template for others to follow and improve upon.
Conversely, can a local community survive and defend against an attack by a hostile nation? Probably not. That is why we do need the Federal Government.
