I just heard on the radio – just now – a ‘speech’ that was given by a candidate running for a seat in the US House of Representatives. This speech was to announce the candidate’s intent to run for the seat, but in it he revealed some very important points not just in his platform, but in his political philosophy as well.
Holding up a light bulb, currently in the works for being outdated and outlawed in favor of new, more energy-efficient bulbs, Hoogendyk (the challenging candidate) asked his core of supporters if we need the government to tell us what kind of light bulb to use, or if we need the government to tell us how much water we can use when we flush our toilets. The crowd, although small, seemed to agree as Hoogendyk made the claim that “we need to return the government back to the people.”
I understand this libertarian ideology. Anyone who has listened to any of Ron Paul’s speeches understand at least how libertarianism can be applied to current political situations, but the problem with libertarianism in the United States is that it perpetuates an individualized, no-strings-attached style of everyday living even though we live in a community that is necessarily linked from person to person, city to city, state to state, coast to coast – you get it.
So what if the government didn’t regulate how much energy anyone used, or how much water someone used? What if there were no regulations on fuel mileage for automobiles or air and water quality standards? What if everyone lived life in their own best interest without any regard for the sustainability of the resources that they consume, much less without any regard for the best interest of those around them? Forgive my pessimism, but I don’t think we would get very far! I am sure that we, as Americans, can rely on the goodwill of others to a certain extent, but if self-centered consumption and an ethos of relativistic law creation and enforcement becomes the status quo our nation will be incapable of surviving as a powerful international state. We would be incapable as surviving as a state at all! As Abraham Lincoln famously observed, “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” and that was in reference to two largely homogenous geographical and ideological masses. If the citizens of the United States adhere only to their own self-interest in regard to energy and resource consumption, self-defense, controlled substance regulation (Ron Paul once told a crowd that we shouldn’t rely on the government to tell us that heroine is bad for us…), and statutory/criminal/civil law, our national house certainly cannot stand.
Philosophical libertarianism is a beautiful thing that is based on the ability of man to govern himself and benefit from the fruits of political freedom and autonomy. Unfortunately, as James Madison once said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary…” and men are not angels. (To be fair, the very next sentence in Madison’s essay says, “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary…” which is a great argument for the libertarian.) So as good as libertarianism sounds especially in the face of big, left-leaning legislation that has been passed in the past 4 years, beginning with the bank bailouts under Bush, and continued by the stimulus package, more bailouts (GM), and health care legislation under Obama, we need to keep in mind that not all government is bad government, and although bigger may not seem better, it’s better than none at all.
