Why I am not a
Why I am not a Libertarian
Friend-in-exile Bob wrote me up today in his blog. He brought up an interesting point that I ought to clarify, just for the record.
For a long time, I identified myself as a Libertarian, being that I fully support its basic principles for government in a free society. Unlike most Republicans and Democrats, Libertarians don't believe that the government has any right to be a father-figure. It shouldn't be in the business of outlawing drugs or prostitution; it shouldn't be in the business of redistributing property from one individual to another. Rather, it should be an institution that protects the right of individuals to function freely in society, each according to his own rational self-interest.
I used to subscribe to the Libertarian foreign-policy plank, too. It allows for a very strict interpretation of when the US should get involved in military action overseas. But their stance on 9/11 exposed a problem for me. They said that we should listen to the terrorists to understand why they attacked us. Al Qaeda wanted our troops out of the Middle East. They wanted us to stop supporting Israel. They wanted us to leave Saddam Hussein alone.
And that's where the analysis end for most Libertarians. But consider the context of Al Qaeda's demands. They have had one long-term goal in mind with everything they do: to establish a worldside Islamic state, ruled by Islamic clerics, under Islamic Sharia law (worldwide, of course, includes this continent too). What baffles me is the schitoma the Libertarians have developed to this overarching goal of these people; they assume that Al Qaeda can be pacified, that they can take the Arabian peninsula and never bother the US again. Libertarians believe, implicitly, that Al Qaeda can be reasoned with. The sad part is that they refuse to acknowledge that Al Qaeda's stated goal is to establish a worldwide institution based on mysticism -- which is utter anathema to reason.
Like Libertarians, though, I know that the long-term solution to many of the world's problems is free trade and the rule of law by a government that respects the primacy of the individual. When the dictators and mullahocracies of the Islamic world release their hold on power and allow their people to be free, the influence of the religious zealots will become ever more marginalized. This certainly happened in Western society; with the rise of capitalism during the Renaissance and its flourishment during the Age of Reason, the Church had to resign itself to merely being a spiritual force in people's lives, and not the head of state. There is no reason to think it would be impossible in the Muslim world.
The vast majority of people, left to their own devices, are capitalists at heart. It is human to interact and trade with each other; we do so voluntarily, each trading value for value, each person acting in his own rational self-interest. As is everywhere, the greatest obstacle to achieving such a society in the Muslim world is the intrusion of government into the process.
Which brings me, finally, to the point. I support anything we can do to bring about freedom and capitalism in any part of the world. And unlike the 15th Century in Europe, the powers that be are far more powerful and harder to take down. I have no problem with the United States acting on behalf of the people in these countries, so long as the action is taken with the clear moral goal in mind, to bring about freedom and a capitalist society in these places. I don't believe, as many Libertarians do, that the people of these countries should just be "allowed to decide for themselves" what kind of government they should have. If the clerics and dictators retain control, and if they succeed in their plans for nuclear and biological weapons, the point will be, miserably, moot. For everyone involved.
So that is why I am no longer a Libertarian. I believe it is far more rational to be what I am now -- a Capitalist.
Posted by Matt at February 21, 2003 1:49 PM
