Be Careful What You WIsh For

"It's never what 'I' or 'We' can do. It's always what the government "ought to do. We should start a sentence not 'the government should' but 'I can." T.C.

One thing I thank libertarian thinkers for is the introducing the non-aggression principle into my world view. It's a powerful position and one that demands utmost intellectual consistency - which libertarians, in my view, do better than most ideologies. Prior to entering the libertarian foray, I espoused a similar view. I had grown concerned at the over-reliance on the government to solve most if not all of society's problems. It occurred to me the more they piled on laws upon bad regulations the more I understood there is no "strong society" or "collective will" ( a popular phrase among populists and jingoists - like the contemptible PQ) if the individual had been stripped of its moral and intellectual agency. If the individual was weak, how can you have a "strong" community? The more we see arguments in favor of government the more I wonder if people are actually thinking anymore.

It's funny. When I was studying history in University (I had always been a history junkie going back to my teen years), classical liberalism and parts of classical conservatism intrigued me. Alas, classical liberalism was framed in a way such that it was 'wrong' to think it was a proper philosophy for modern times relying on the silly notion society is too 'complex' for such thinking.

Of course. Progressivism was the perfect response.

Ugh.

I went along with it for a brief period choosing to not dig deeper. Since 9/11, libertarian and conservative publications forced me to rethink and chart a new course. For that, I am grateful. They were challenging their readers whereas left-wing sites seemed to be defensive (as in defending their heritage against a mountain of evidence suggesting it was time to reinvent itself) and reactionary (attacking those that questioned it - e.g. any contemporary liberal pundit chastising libertarianism less with facts and solid intellectualism and more with appeals to emotion attempting to paint an eclectic and diverse group like libertarians as one monolithic block. Sorta like how the Parti Quebecois divides Quebec between them and 'les autres' as if Anglos are one block. It's easier that way to attack). I understand and have read the other side make the exact same claim I just made here (ah, the dangers of critical thinking) but it's been my personal observation.

I simply believe they're on the wrong side of things. From their idea on poverty to economics to civil liberties.

I shamelessly re-post large parts of an article (including the image) from Le Quebecois Libre titled 'There Oughta Be A Law!":

“There oughta be a law” is not something you’re likely to hear coming out of the mouth of a libertarian, however, except as sarcasm. Most libertarians believe that government legislation leads to bad outcomes for all kinds of reasons, from warped incentives to unintended consequences. More fundamentally, libertarians are against government legislation because we believe that it is inherently wrong to initiate coercion against other human beings. Now, that is a decidedly minority view; most people believe the state should adopt rules that govern our conduct in order to (presumably) make the world a better place. So why the disagreement on such a basic question?"

In my view, the reason that non-libertarians are so comfortable with government action is that they have not thought through what exactly it means to say, “There oughta be a law.” Of course, they know that it means that something should be mandatory or illegal—but they haven’t taken a step back to think about what exactly that means in practice.

So what does it mean to assert that government should do something? Let’s start at the beginning. The textbook definition of the state is an entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (within its borders). It’s vital to understand that this is not some eccentric libertarian viewpoint—any introductory political science textbook will tell you the same thing. In practice, that means that if you violate the state’s rules, you get punished through force. Drive too fast? Get fined. Flunk a health inspection? Get shut down. Sell drugs? Get arrested.

"Imagine a simple scenario: You’re a business owner who buys and sells second-hand goods. One day someone enters your store with an old baby walker that’s been sitting in their basement for the past decade. Figuring someone might be interested, you take it off their hands. Unbeknownst to either of you, however, that walker has been banned since last it was used. And because it’s your unlucky day, later that afternoon, in walks an employee of Health Canada’s product safety division. “That’s illegal!” he says, pointing to the offending device. Thinking he should mind his own business, you ignore him and, when he insists, politely ask him to leave. Unfortunately for you, our hypothetical do-gooder is fully seized of his mission to protect the public. The next day, he informs his supervisor of your contraband. When the inspector comes through the door, you tell him that your mother used a walker with you, you used own with your kids, that he’s out of his mind and that he has until the count of 10 to get out before you get him out. Undeterred, our friend returns—this time, with police backup. At this point, your choice becomes clear: Either let the man onto your property to carry out his task, or risk finding yourself staring down the barrel of a gun. Kicking out a man with a clipboard is one thing, but trying to kick out a police officer is liable to get you shot dead.

The point is this: Every rule and regulation adopted by the state is ultimately backed up by the threat of physical force—if necessary, deadly force. That’s not to say that public workers are aspiring Robocops. The vast majority of them are ordinary people who do a job like anyone else—except that theirs grants them the right to force other people to comply with their instructions. And while it may be unheard of for, say, a workplace safety inspector to call in a SWAT team so she can check a factory floor, that’s precisely because the threat of violence hovers over her as she goes about her day. After all, if the mob showed up at your door “asking” for their cut of the day’s profits, the interaction would probably unfold very cordially, since you know what would happen if you were to refuse. The same is true of anything the state does: As people know that there are serious consequences for refusing to comply, they do so cheerfully.

To say that “there oughta be a law” is to say, “People should be compelled under threat of violence.” It is to say that whatever the rule is, it should be applied not by persuasion but by compulsion. Anyone who fails to comply should be required to yield or else to face physical force and—if it comes to that—potentially lethal consequences. Walk through the scenario with any government edict and the penalty for stubbornly refusing to obey is ultimately the same. Whether it’s extracting fossil fuels from rocks, exchanging money for healthcare or broadcasting the wrong kind of music, a persistent, stubborn refusal to follow the rules will not just get you in trouble but will ultimately result in physical damage to your person, should you refuse to cooperate.

I don’t doubt that many people would still support all kinds of laws even if they fully understood that uniformed men brandishing firearms will be called in to enforce them if necessary. Some things are arguably worse than the threat of violence, and if you think that a rule is necessary to prevent starvation or disease or societal collapse, it’s entirely reasonable to insist that it should be enforced at the barrel of a gun. But how many laws and regulations even purport to have so critical a purpose? How many are supported merely on the grounds that there is some nuisance or inconvenience that should be done away with? Put in these terms, is it right that the state mandate the colour of one’s home? Should it prevent you from accessing a Wi-Fi network? What about fixing the price of books, the hue of margarine, the layout of your keyboard, the type of bulb in your socket or how you open your bathroom door?"

Enter tyranny of the majority! But the majority voted for it. So if six out of 10 says you need a new handle for your door even though you PERSONALLY are fine with it (for whatever reasons) too bad.