by Cylinsier
There has been a movement recently among conservatives to identify as libertarian while at the same time blatantly illustrating a total lack of understanding of what libertarianism is. Basically, it occurs when a particularly staunch conservative is railing against some perceived socialist/communist/atheist/islamist/fascist threat and then, as if to remind us that his opinions are not grounded in partisanship (which they are), he adds, "and I'm not just saying this because I'm a Republican. I'm a libertarian." Another thing we can credit Glenn Beck for, by the way.
Here's the problem: what these conservatives are really advocating when they talk about states' rights and small central government is not really libertarianism, its more anti-federalism. Libertarianism is, at is most basic level, the belief that government should not legislate social or economic freedoms. Its more or less a kind of organized anarchy. There are plenty of reasons why that system wouldn't work, but there's no reason to go into that because its not a system that these fauxbertarians are really advocating; ask someone claiming libertarianism if they are in favor of global isolationism, or legalization of all drugs, or gay marriage. You'd be hard pressed to find one that says yes.
The big difference between real libertarianism and anti-federalism is that the latter doesn't support the elimination of government from citizens' lives, just the elimination of the federal government. Its really an ideology of convenience; most of these so-called libertarians were not in favor of states' rights trumping federal law when Bush was President. Rather, its a situation of not wanting the other guy's government to be in control, which signifies a lack of respect for the way our government works in my opinion, but that's another story.
Setting aside the transparent reasoning for supporting anti-federalism, what the fauxbertarians exhibit in their outspoken support of state supremacy is a total lack of knowledge of history. While no other country that I can immediately think of has tried a style of anti-federalist government in modern history (I suppose feudalism might count if you want to go further back), the United States actually did try confederacy as a style of government. It failed miserably. In 1781, our young nation ratified the Articles of Confederation. By 1788, the founding fathers had already convened to replace it. As a Federal Union, we have lasted 221 years. As a confederacy, we lasted 7.
The problem with that Articles was that giving such great power to the different states while giving so little power to a governing body over them allowed each state too much freedom to act in their own personal interests without regard to the common good. States were free to tell their armies what to do without having to confer with other states. They were free to refuse to pay federal taxes. They were free to print their own currency and refuse to accept the currency of other states. The "United States" was more like a collection of 13 individual nations than 13 parts of a whole. Anti-federalists either do not remember learning about this time in school, or they simply refuse to acknowledge it. But just like each individual citizen has a responsibility to maintain personal order for the sake of society, each individual state had a responsibility to maintain order for the Union. And also just like individuals, without some form of governing body enforcing basic laws, there was no incentive for these states to do so under the Articles.
Anti-federalism does have one thing in common with libertarianism; both systems function on the belief that people or individual states are inherently fair and self-regulating and will ultimately make the correct decisions without being forced, and that acting for personal gain and prosperity can be achieved without harming the overall welfare of society. As history has shown us repeatedly, this is not the case by any means. The vast majority of people are short-sighted and self-serving. Allowing a system like anti-federalism to become the rule of the land would lead to eventual collapse. We tried it for 7 years before the founding fathers realized that. We teach our children in schools to learn about government from the fathers' decisions, so why do so many refuse to learn this lesson? Anti-federalism doesn't work.
12 comments:
I think you should quit pretending to be a Libertarian yourself. Here in California, we went to the polls and legalized medical use of marijuana, only to have the will of the people be trumped by the federal supremacy that you advocate.
"States rights" is a term that refers to the right of the people to have their government as de-centralized and local as possible. This is for two overriding reasons; the first being that the smaller the government entity you're dealing with, the easier it is to fight it, and the second being that if push comes to shove, you can vote with your feet.
I am pretty sure Cy isn't pretending to be a libertarian...
But that's a good point... however, the fed's plowing-over of your marijuana law is not a symptom of a bad fed, but of a bad law. Vote with your feet and get the federal law changed...
Oh wait... we kinda sorta did that to some extent last year... and the administration that resulted from that has basically gone hands-off on your weed sales... So, like... whatcha bitchin' about?
Yeah, I'm not pretending to be a libertarian. Its a bad system in my opinion. I'm pro federal government and I think states' rights are kind of silly. If you want to have different rights in California than the rest of the country, secede. In my opinion, its more important to secure the right laws for the entire nation than to be selfish and look out for only your own ass. Sorry.
I totally agree with your post, Cy. I was reading some of the comments on the Libertarian Party page on FB a couple of days ago and most of them are really conservatives, not Libertarians.
Cylinsier,
I'm curious what makes you think that you have any idea what the "right laws" are for the rest of the country.
If we are simply to live under one giant form of majority rules, then close to half of the country will always feel disenfranchised by "the other guy's government."
Which is precisely the opposite of what was explicitly laid out by the Constitution.
The libertarian vs. anti-federalist argument is a red herring. Even federalists like James Madison admitted that the central government's powers were "few and defined," while those left to the states were "numerous and indefinite."
The concept of states' rights is not "silly," it is not racist, and it is not new. The tension and competition between the state and central governments was intended to be the ultimate safeguard of the people's liberty.
It is the only way to assure that the largest possible number of people feel represented by a government close enough to understand their needs, or close enough to be altered when necessary.
The arrogance required to believe the opinions of 51% of the population are ever so enlightened as to be worthy of coerced obedience by the other 49% never ceases to amaze me.
I'm curious what makes you think that you have any idea what the "right laws" are for the rest of the country.
Where did I say I did? The majority decides what is right for the country.
If we are simply to live under one giant form of majority rules, then close to half of the country will always feel disenfranchised by "the other guy's government."
Yeah, kind of like Bush from 2001 to 2008. Which is why we have elections. Eventually, the disenfranchised become the majority, and the guard is changed. The system is actually very effective and has been for quite a while.
Which is precisely the opposite of what was explicitly laid out by the Constitution.
What makes you the expert on what the Constitution is supposed to mean? Nothing in it is "precise." If it was, we wouldn't still argue over it and amend it to this day.
The libertarian vs. anti-federalist argument is a red herring. Even federalists like James Madison admitted that the central government's powers were "few and defined," while those left to the states were "numerous and indefinite."
It is if we're debating libertarianism, but that's not what the original point of my blog post was. I was being critical of conservatives claiming to be libertarian when they don't know what it means, not being critical of libertarianism itself, although that seems to be where the comments are heading.
The concept of states' rights is not "silly," it is not racist, and it is not new. The tension and competition between the state and central governments was intended to be the ultimate safeguard of the people's liberty.
Who said anything about racism? And I know its not new, that's why I referred to the Articles of Confederation. Its at least as old as our nation. As feudalism, its older. And of course, it has never worked out for the best. And again, you make assumptions about the intentions of our founding fathers that you cannot know. The reason I think states' rights are silly is because they are the same system as the rights of individual sovereign nations. If you want your smaller piece of land to have different laws than mine, I'm happy for you, but I don't think your land should still be covered by my federal government. What's the point? Your state isn't playing ball with my nation, so go be your own nation.
It is the only way to assure that the largest possible number of people feel represented by a government close enough to understand their needs, or close enough to be altered when necessary.
How noble. What happens when 51% of your state population decides to ban electricity? City rights? Neighborhood rights? Each man's house is subject to its own laws? When does it end? The fact of the matter is people at all numbers are fickle and, when not being lazy, are willing to assess their situation and make changes for the better. Again, that's why we have elections. They work just fine at the national level.
The arrogance required to believe the opinions of 51% of the population are ever so enlightened as to be worthy of coerced obedience by the other 49% never ceases to amaze me.
Kind of like the arrogance required to believe being a libertarian makes you automatically smarter than me? 51% of the population of your state will decide your laws too. The concept of libertarianism, despite its selfishness, would at least be palatable if it rested on your preconceived notion that the population's opinion is set in stone. But it is not; it is fluid and it changes, if for no other reason by virtue of death and birth. You change unjust laws by pulling the majority to your side at every level, state or national.
The idea of states being free to set drastically different laws is no different than sovereign nations. Ultimately, I'm not opposed to libertarianism outright, but let's call it what it is. Why should your state even be in the union if it is a free agent? Set your own currency and immigration laws, form your own military, and stopping beating around the bush.
Really? I would say the Tenth Amendment is pretty explicit.
Those with a vested interest in centralizing government may argue to the contrary, but I prefer to use plain English when interpreting documents written in that language.
And you make an excellent point, 51% of the population of your state or city might choose something you dislike. But you can move or change those governments with far less time, effort, or money than it takes to leave the country or affect policy in D.C.
Which is why it seems to me that eight years of Bush/Cheney would have left someone who felt oppressed by them in favor of decentralized government.
Power always has a potential for menace wherever it is concentrated. Better it be as close as possible to those over whom it is wielded.
"But you can move or change those governments with far less time, effort, or money than it takes to leave the country or affect policy in D.C."
We would not last long as a union of 50 states if it were that easy to live where the law suits you. It would be only a matter of one election cycle before we were no longer the United States of America.
Also, there are macro, federal-level issues that, despite some fierce opposition on some level, are genuinely superior to the sovereignty of a state. Having a consistent benchmark for vetting public school curriculae, for example, is valuable to our long term economic prospects. A child in a flat-earth, creationist state will undoubtedly be at a disadvantage to a child who is exposed to the facts of heliocentrism and evolution. The wants of the community cannot be allowed to usurp the innate power of fact.
"Which is why it seems to me that eight years of Bush/Cheney would have left someone who felt oppressed by them in favor of decentralized government.
Power always has a potential for menace wherever it is concentrated. Better it be as close as possible to those over whom it is wielded."
This seems like such a statement of powerlessness... Over the course of the next 3 years, you will have the opportunity to change your country at least twice. It's not that you are powerless over your government, but that your power is proportionate to your role in our society. Yes, you have MORE power over who is on your school board than you do over who is president... but despite our constant misgivings about our government it actually IS for and by the people. We vote, and we get the one who wins according to the rules of the vote.
If it never seems to go your way or please you... maybe its your vision or values that are out of whack with the rest of society. I'm not saying that is "wrong"... but at some point, I have to say to the Ron Paul crowd "you need to get behind someone with a snowball's chance in hell at winning."
My last comment reads a little more critical than what I intended...
Basically, libertarianism is an ideal that is to be sought, but never achieved.
It's an idealized goal... a utopia... we will always hear calls for less government... but government will always be too big for some, not big enough for others... and we will never actually reach that point where the world is roses.
I don't think its unachievable. Libertarianism is just a world full of larger unions of many thousands of tiny countries that ask for protections from their unions but are not held to any kind of loyalty to said union or its other members in return. In other words, feudalism, but with a trophy central government that exists basically for no reason. In a sense, the planet Earth is a libertarian entity with the UN serving as a central government and wielding the level of power you would expect the central government of a libertarian entity to yield. Which is nothing beyond symbolic.
Kind of ironic when you put it in those terms :-)
Post a Comment