schweblog

I’ve heard a multitude of adjectives used for those of us who identify ourselves as Libterarians: crazy, heartless, cold, and gun-toting, to name just a few. Sometimes I think I may be all of these things, but then I take a step back and remind myself how I arrived at this point. I’m satisfied with my position and I think, taken in context, my political philosophy is not as morally reprehensible as several folks make it out to be.

The essence of Libertarian philosophy is a rugged individualism–the individual’s rights should be maximized at all costs, provided those costs do not entail the restriction of another’s life, liberty, or property. Basically, it’s a barebones government structure that has a striking similarity to small-scale communism (local infrastructure is the responsibility of communities, not federal governments) only with currency. Some Libertarians–like myself–believe that basic infrastructure is best acheived via the medium of government: roads, for example, and other basic “needs” for the community.

The definition of what a community “needs” is where Libertarians differ from most “liberal” political philosophies. Does a community need a publically-funded high school? Potentially, but in light of other educational opportunities (private and magnet schools, etc.), the need is undermined. Naturally, the objection of equalization is brought up–it’s true, Libertarians do not view government as a grand equalizer. The government needs to provide the basic tools to better oneself, not make these things compulsory. Naturally, this is a simple glazing over the essential philosophy of Libertarianism and doesn’t do it–or its objectors–credit.

However, the bigger point is this: one can be at the same time a political Libertarian and an individualistic philanthropist. I believe that we do have a duty to help those in need, provided we have practical means to do so. However, unlike many “liberal” political philosophies, I don’t think the government is the best medium to fulfill that obligation. In fact, a government that does fulfill some basic social obligations (helping your poor countryman via welfare and MedicAid, etc.) may actually encourage a mindset that relieves the individual of the burden of charity. In other words, government providing handouts to your poor neighbor may actually make you feel justified in denying your neighbor something that they deserve, given their situation.

It’s a little logical trick that provides a self-affirming tautology which reinforces the most basic element of liberalism. By providing a justification for selfishness (”Joe Schmoe is receiving welfare–he doesn’t need my help, too.”) liberal policies reinforce the very characteristic that they dub “evil” and at the same time “natural”–the basic greediness of human nature. If you remove this mechanism in an environment where general economic prosperity exists and give citizens a chance to acclimate to it, there’s a good possibility that they’ll warm up to helping their neighbors and countrymen now that Big Brother is no longer around to “help.”

My own personal experience is probably the best testament to this theory that I know of. In spite of the rather extensive assistance offered by my city to homeless people, I won’t hesitate to purchase them a meal down the street, provided I have a few extra dollars to spend. In spite of large amounts of money that are spent annually on foreign aid in the US (quantitatively speaking, not relatively speaking), I still have aspirations to go out into the world with my own money and try to make a difference in another country–right now, I’m thinking about travelling to Nepal, purchasing a piece of land, and starting a school in a rural environment. The country lacks a good educational model for rural environments and this relatively small investment ($20,000 or so) could revolutionize the country’s education system. Another Libertarian I know just joined the Peace Corps. Examples, I think, abound.

Libertarians aren’t the cold, heartless, living-off-the-grid bastards that we’re normally likened to. There are, indeed, some of us that are like that. Given my experience, though, I’d say that a good majority of Libertarians are actually caring, sensible people–and they can be very charitable. However, we just don’t view the government as the best vehicle for our charity, given the potentially corrupt men that are at the helm of the government. So before you think that the next Libertarian you meet will spit on the homeless beggar before he gives him pocket change, think again–that cold, heartless bastard might just be warm, caring philanthropist deep down.