Ahhh, libertarianism.
On the surface, what’s to dislike about it? Obviously, their philosophy poses alluring ideas--freedom for all, no initiation of force--and sounds rational enough.
As much as I'd like to become libertarian, and uphold those tempting ideals, the so-called “practical” issues of everyday government drag me back to my normal, center-right self. The abolition of the Federal Reserve, a pet issue for some libertarian-minded people, does not make any rational sense to me; the Reserve, though occasionally messing up, has generally brought a cycle of long periods of growth followed by much milder, shorter, recessions. Nineteenth century boom-bust cycles included much shorter booms, and much longer busts, then we do currently. To that end I wonder what exactly the Federal Reserve does wrong to earn its abysmal reputation with libertarians.
Libertarians, as far as I can tell, base the importance they place on freedom on “individual sovereignty;” that is, every human person’s self-ownership gives him the right to choose his own actions. Thus, when the government infringes upon this right, it is committing an immoral action itself. However, this impression relies on logical fallacy. How can one derive a “right to choose” from “an ability to choose”? Self-ownership may be a fact, but ownership of my own body does not give me an ability declare it is immoral to physically hurt me, though obviously, it is my preference.
By now you are probably screaming, “But it is wrong for anyone to physically hurt someone."
Well, yes, it is.
But hold on. How can one person say something is, and use it describe what we ought to do, without a stated goal? I can say
A. Pencil sharpeners sharpen pencils, and I have a broken pencil. (the "is", or facts.)
B. I need/want my pencil to be sharpened. (the "goal")
C. To complete the goal I should put it in the pencil sharpener (the "ought")
The point is, one cannot say what we “ought” to do in a vacuum--only what we ought to do to accomplish a goal. Otherwise, one could reasonably suggest that sharpening broken pencils is a moral principle, along the same lines as the libertarian thought.
Is it possible to make that goal morality? A way to say, in order to be moral, I must____.
Well…..
Not objectively.
Yes, it is wrong to hurt others, and yes, it oftentimes is wrong to avert my freedom of choice. This, however, must come from something more intrinsic and subjective. The maintenance of value, especially human value (NOT economic value) is the basis of all morality--for when we, as humans, rightfully give our lives and other things value (like the environment) we give ourselves the subjective goal to maintain the value of what we hold dear. Obviously every person has different beliefs about what is valuable enough to where it becomes immoral to desecrate that value, and everyone has different opinions on what constitutes desecration. Many conservatives value the environment only as far as it benefits human-beings, while environmentalists believe otherwise. What is valuable can be reasoned, but only subjectively. Ditto for what gets moral protection.
So what does this have to do with libertarianism?
Now we have a goal: Do not desecrate human value. Libertarians posit “the initiation of force” must be immoral--and as such, freedom to do what one wants to do--without force-- becomes a value. The question is, does the initiation of force always desecrate human value? What if you force a friend, in their moment of weakness, not to try that first cigarette, in order to save his health? To go to school before they can decide for themselves, in order to give her the potential to do what she wants in this world when they she can choose? To not commit suicide, to save a life? Are these examples of the desecration of human value?
I do not think so. A person could believe that it is not morally necessary to do these things--but can not say it is evil to do them. No, I will not try to say which political things I believe valuable or not valuable here--suffice it to say, freedom can give us the ultimate opportunity to express our value, to reach out across the world, be empathetic, be artistic and create beauty, be scientific and advance our understanding of the world and progress our standard of living--inasmuch as we happily thrive in liberty, I believe in liberty.
Inasmuch as it brings out the cruelty of our human world, our ever-enduring falliable nature, our willingness to place beauty on a sacrificial pyre, I can not believe.
Yet.
