I was born in Indiana and raised as a Catholic. My parents didn't talk a great deal about politics or philosophy per se, but I had gathered many opinions on these subjects from them and (as I would suspect is the case for most children) adopted those opinions as my own. It wasn't until I was 14 that I really questioned my core values. I suppose adolescence is the time when many individuals deconstruct those principles they took for granted growing up and evaluate them for personal consistency. I stopped believing in spiritual things as a freshman in high school, but saw no reason to quit behaving as morally as I had before. But I soon realized there were some aspects of my Catholic upbringing that could rightly apply to any sane human being. Basic morality including not killing or stealing was clearly wrong. Other things, like going to church on Sunday, seemed less of an offense against people and more of an offense against God (which I was no longer worried about). Still there were some things I chose to keep, like avoiding drugs, which I maintained were not 'moral' concerns, but rather 'personal value' concerns. These personal values required non-spiritual reasoning to support them. Drugs never interested me and they seemed to be a health concern, but other things are health concerns too. I avoid drugs primarily because I like being in control of myself. But I had friends who did drugs and I respected that they owned themselves and could make their own choices about their lives.
Four years on high school debate team led to a profound interest in philosophy. John Stossel's "In the Classroom" series was often shown during government class and I realized that being a libertarian made more sense than being a socially conservative republican (because who am I to tell you what to do to yourself?) and it made more sense than being a fiscally liberal democrat (because why should someone else have to pay for your life?). After high school, I joined the Libertarian Party and attended my undergrad to study biology (because it interested me AND could pay the bills), but I minored in philosophy because I had such an interest in the subject. Throughout this time, I tried to get the word out about the Libertarian Party, but it was greatly overshadowed by the democrats and republicans. Interestingly, it seemed as though many Libertarian activism ideas were being co-opted by the republicans on campus, but not the democrats. Like many in the sciences, my plan after college was to get my PhD and become a professor.
It was not until earning my MS that I began to see how truly entrenched the democrats are in the sciences. The word diversity was everywhere but I feel the liberal use of the word is only skin deep. Universities do demonstrate that they love racial diversity (to the point of excluding students with better credentials), but they have not fooled anyone into believing that they care about political diversity. To be fair, social liberalism is quite conducive for promoting a healthy learning environment. But fiscal liberalism fosters a mentality of dependence on the government, which is anything but healthy.
The discovery of the Free Talk Live podcast/radio show enlightened me about the possibilities of putting one's money where one's mouth is. It might not have been enough to simply try and vote the right people in or send letters to my congressmen (though I still do), if I want to achieve freedom for my fellow Americans I might have to protest and get active. The notion of civil disobedience had always seemed taboo and radical, but I was told these things by those in power to begin with. Overcoming that taboo required linking the idea to people who are nearly universally admired; people like Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi. But this put me in a predicament. Here I am, a libertarian fighting the system and yet my PhD stipend money is coming from the very federal grants I oppose. One the one hand, I do deserve to get paid for my work. On the other hand, the idea that the money is coming from the theft of the people is disturbing to say the least. My current resolve is to try and secure my own funding from a private source and to find a career free from government handouts.
Why do I ascribe to the Libertarian philosophy?
Consider anarchy. Many associate the word with chaos or horrors or murder in the streets. If you associate the word anarchy with that then big brother has succeeded in redefining the word. An-archy is simply the lack of a government, just as a-theism is the lack of religion. Neither, patently means murdering in the streets. That is just a successful smear campaign from big government and big religion.
So, as I was saying, consider anarchy. No taxes, no government breathing down your neck, people being generally peaceful. Then some jerk tries to murder you. Well, it's pretty obvious that he's violating you somehow. Specifically, he's violating your right to life. Well, it turns out he decided not to kill you, but to merely lock you up in a room. Again, he's violated something. Specifically, your right to liberty. In the end, he ran off with your stuff and violated your right to property. Something must be done! Well, you and your neighbors agree to form a government. A government is simply a contractual agreement to protect the rights of the governed. The cost to the governed is simply giving up the liberty to violate those rights of your neighbors. Result: I no longer have the freedom to punch Larry, but he's no longer allowed to steal my stuff. The other costs associated with this government include the costs required to protect these rights (police, courts, etc.) Ah, now that everyone has to play by the rules, everyone is more secure. This is all good and fine for responsible individuals like adults, but what about kids? Well, to be sure the role of government in the lives of children would be very different. The concern with the government typically is the protection of rights. For children, the concern would just be protection of life to the degree which that wasn't already provided by the family. And since this government is not alone in the world, a small military should probably exist as a last resort in the event diplomacy fails.
That is my ideal Libertarian world. You and you alone are responsible for your decisions and your rights are sacrosanct. How did that Lockean ideal become the gnarly mess we have today? Beats the hell out of me.
No comments:
Post a Comment