Confessions of an Alleged Former Libertarian

I have often wondered, "Where are all the former Libertarians?"  Well, I was delighted to come across tale of one on the School Sucks podcast.  In the highly recommended episode Brett goes word-by-word though a Salon.com article titled, "Confessions of a former Libertarian: My personal, psychological and intellectual epiphany."  I opened the article immediately upon arriving home from my daily commute.  Even though Brett went through the article in great detail, I couldn't wait to read it with my own eyes, thinking that there had to be some substance that I missed by just listening to it.  I was greatly disappointed. In spite of the title there was no description of an intellectual epiphany within the article. The author describes how the logical consistency of libertarianism made him feel good and allowed him to win arguments, but how, over time, the fact that he and his friends didn't feel that the ideology allowed him to act compassionately led to his conversion to "unremarkable liberalism."

I see.  It's a simple matter of feelings over mind, so let's work through the illogical progression.  I used to think that no one had the right the initiate the use of force against others.  But this didn't sit well with me.  What if some people don't have everything that I think they need, after all?  Other people can provide it for them.  Why shouldn't they be forced?  Viola!  I have a right to force A to give to B what i think B needs, because by God, that's the compassionate way to live!

My Problem with Star Trek

I'm a big fan of Star Trek.  I may not know as much trivia about the show, its characters or the actors and actresses who played them as the biggest nerds do, but I have as much admiration as anyone for the backdrop that the writers created to explore human nature.

I do have one relatively large quibble on the other hand.  I do not have a problem accepting the technological achievements of the time period.  Warp drive, teleportation, phaser pistols and all the rest I can handle within the context of the Star Trek universe.  What I cannot fathom on the other hand, and what seems too unrealistic to me, is the idea that they exist in a post-scarcity society in which money is no longer is necessary.  "We solved poverty." is the line the comes to mind.  Maybe so; maybe everyone in society has ample means.  I can buy that with sufficient technological achievement.  What I cannot buy is the idea that time, energy and materials are no longer scarce and that there is no longer a desire anywhere to make relative value judgments between any combination of goods or services.  Getting 'beyond money' in my mind is tantamount to getting beyond heartache and disappointment.  These are fundamental aspects of being human and living with other humans.  Even in space drama, subverting fundamental human characteristics runs counter to one's story telling goals. 

How to Argue with Liberals, Progressives and Other Leftists - The Central Tenet of Statism

The key to rhetorically dominating any flawed ideology is in attacking its basis, which is naturally usually mistaken.  The root of leftist, progressive, social democratic and other euphemistic variants of socialist/statist thought is the idea that people basically suck.  It goes like this.

People suck so:

• They will not educate their own children up to our standards.  We must take their money and their children and educate them ourselves.  
• They will not help each other, especially rich people who look down on the helpless poor masses.  We must take a portion of everyone's money, especially the rich because they won't miss it, and give it to people who can't support themselves.  Anyone who considers this thievery doesn't care about the poor.  
• They are unscrupulous and will rampantly profit off of the ignorance of consumers by selling them defective, dangerous products.  We must wield the long arm of the law to regulate the production and marketing of practically every product in every market to protect the poor, stupid masses.  
• They are easily conned and too ignorant and lazy to look out for their own interests.  See above.  
• They will destroy their minds and bodies with drugs, alcohol and unhealthy food if left to their own discretion.  Some drugs are just too dangerous to be in the presence of these poorly programmed automatons; they must be banned.  Other drugs, such as alcohol, must be tightly controlled and highly taxed to prevent the breakdown of society.  The amount of salt, saturated fat, sugar and other nasty ingredients in the commoner's diet must be managed by law if possible.  If we fail in that, we can take their money and educate them on the matter.       

Granted, few people I know would ever justify their world view by bluntly stating that people suck, though I can recall at least one who has.  Somehow the premise for these ideologies is generally given as a love or respect for people, but I fail to see the logic behind loving and respecting humans so much as to advocate for their control, in whole or in part. 

Of course the human condition is more complicated than "people suck" vs. "people don't suck".  I tend to the believe the latter more often than not, though I try to shy away from such banal generalities.  

Individuals have a variety of skills, aptitudes and ambitions.  They interact, exchange, improve and decline in unpredictable and fascinating ways.  People, even at the "lowest" rungs of society, think and act with volition; there is no such mass of poor, starving automatons who need to have their lives planned for them.  There are people like you and me who want to be free from coercion.  Even those who do not recognize this just and moral sentiment of human interaction should be granted the privilege.  If you care so much for your common man but fear that the remainder of society is too evil or inept to help of their own accord, please volunteer your own resources to the cause before advocating codified force against your neighbor.