|
Libertarians
and the S Words
by George F. Smith
Libertarians
rail about government – “Look how it has failed. Look how it
robs and murders” – but they miss an important point. Lay bare
government’s intentions and they’re as pure as silk, according to
conventional morality. It’s okay to blow up Iraqi children as
long as we force-feed their parents neocon democracy. Government means
well, dammit. What can libertarians say about what they
mean?
Oh, I know – libertarians excel in pristine motives; they want all
people to be free and respect the freedom of others. But in truth
that’s a tissue-thin cover for selfishness. And who has the guts
to stand up for that? With everything we hear about the virtue of
herd action, who could believe this society reached spectacular heights
of prosperity with individual s pursuing their own “narrow”
interests? The U.S. of A. was founded on the supreme principle of
sacrifice, according to PC (politically collective) mythology --
on the subordination of the individual to the Greater Good, which for
our convenience is embodied in the State. That’s the very reason
Hamilton and his pals chucked the Articles of Confederation for the U.S.
Constitution, to make collecting burnt offerings easier. [1]
Like stern parents with benign hearts, today’s gods of the Potomac are
merely preserving an American tradition.
Why can’t libertarians see this? Individuals are to the state
what cattle are to the slaughterhouse – by moral design. The
sacrifice isn’t an unfortunate necessity, it’s an expression of our
“noblest” virtue. If there aren’t enough wars to keep
American youth busy, then send them to clean up the parks or police the
ghettos – send them anywhere, but make them serve the State. [2]
Americans are too “me” oriented, we’re told. It’s the
State’s role to cleanse them with the ointment of humility and
sacrifice. Get the State’s schools to make community service a
requirement for advancement. Conscript those who drop out.
Make an example of intransigents.
Of course, libertarians reject conscripted service as a violation of
rights. But how many stand up for selfishness? I can see
them cringing. Libertarians will win a lot of battles without
challenging the “ideal” of sacrifice, but they’ll never win the
war.
Some libertarians do admit that what they’re advancing is a morality
friendly to self-interest, but to come out screaming for selfishness
would be idiotic and self-defeating. Sacrifice is too well
entrenched to uproot directly. Make men free, and they’ll see
the benefits of dealing with others as political equals. They’ll
still be free to genuflect, but it’ll be their decision.
The public struggles hard enough with the libertarian idea of
laissez-faire, they say. Why beat them to death with prickly moral
implications?
While this may be true for most of the public, there are many voiceless
individuals who want more than a letter to the editor to protest
government’s orgy of sacrifice. The long-suffering taxpayers are
ready to dump King George’s tea in the harbor. Why the blazes
are they forced to pay for the destruction of a country that didn’t
have us in its crosshairs, then pay for the massive rebuilding on top of
that, never mind the loss of life involved? When local communities
around the country are rejecting socialistic proposals from state
governments, [3] on what grounds do their so-called
representatives in Washington saddle them with an astronomically
expensive and destructive prescription drug program? Government
gets away with these things because they dump them on us with
high-sounding rhetoric, which is only State-speak for sacrifice.
The public desperately needs voices to defend their self-interest. With
a likely dollar crisis on the horizon, [4] they’ll be
ready to hang the next politician who preaches the blessings of
austerity and self-denial. The average Joe is looking for moral
reasons to stand tall, as a man whose life is his own, not cannon fodder
for the “virtuous” crusades of others.
Libertarians fear the average person can’t break with his
state-indoctrinated past. While encouraged to be all they can be,
citizens are intimidated from wandering outside certain officially
approved circles, lest they stumble onto the path of insurrection and
anarchy. Trust us to take control of your political life, says the
state; we’re not perfect, but we’re trying and we have your best
interests at heart. In fact, the official circles are presented as
boundless territories with no reality outside them. It’s only
the whacko libertarians with their delusions of freedom who insist that
there is.
Here’s where ideological maintenance plays a critical role.
The media accepts government action as a fact of nature, like molten
lava oozing through a village, a terrible tragedy, but not subject to
moral judgment. In exchange for the blinders, the newsies get a
chance to embed themselves in the State’s wars or share in a few of
its extravaganzas, especially around election time. They aren’t
about to cast a critical eye on an institution that has unmatched power
to make war and loot its citizens. Besides, these are public
officials working selflessly for the good of the country, their motives
unsoiled by any concern for profit. On the other hand, business
people, though they contort their language to deny it, are after bigger
bucks all the time. They too aren’t judged, in the sense of
weighing their actions – they’re a priori guilty. If
sacrifice is the ideal, pursuing profit is one notch below infanticide.
The Martha Stewarts of this world always need a good whupping, [5]
not servants of the people like our benefactors in D.C. If you
don’t believe it, visit a State school sometime.
The barriers are formidable, but not insuperable. Selfishness properly
understood promotes prosperity and good will among people. Libertarians
who share this conviction and can present it effectively will find
audiences hungry to hear it.
1
Trask, H. A. Scott, "Rethinking
the Articles of Confederation"
2 Paul, Ron Rep., "Conscription
is Collectivism," Ron Paul’s Texas Straight Talk
3 "Alabama
Voters Reject Record Tax Hike," September 9, 2003
4 Guru, the Mogambo, "Weep
for America," The Daily Reckoning, Dec. 8, 2003
5 Ostrowski, James, "What’s
Wrong With Juries?"
|