May 28, 2009

I have decided what I am politically -A Constitutional-Libertarian

 

Will The People please stand up
columnist: Ken D. Berry, MD

Topic: Libertarianism
The constitutional-Libertarian
A partial description of a creature who understands and believes in the core concepts of libertarian philosophy, but who also realizes that America was the closest the world has yet come to these ideals, and who judges this experiment cannot be allowed to fail either by defeat, by treachery or by slow attrition.
by Ken D. Berry, MD
(libertarian)
Wednesday, January 21, 2009

The title of constitutional-Libertarian should not bring to mind a new splinter group of libertarian thought, but rather an umbrella with room for many, from the conservative who happens to also believe in absolute freedom of speech, to the liberal who just happens to believe in smaller government.

It is the smallest of compromises for the pure libertarian, but it allows room for thousands who are not (yet) quite so dedicated to liberty in its absolute form(s). I respectfully submit that pure libertarianism does not sound at all attractive to the average man on the street because its precepts are so foreign from his present paradigm. While true that lengthy debates and diligent study, I believe, would bring most around to the libertarian view, it must finally be admitted by libertarians that most people don't like lengthy debates or the diligent study of philosophy, economics, governance or anything else.

Now one can almost sense the strictest of libertarians beginning to grumble, but hear me out. In order to actually change the course of our federal government, we must eventually have a voice that can be heard by more than just the choir; in order to start to set things aright, Libertarians must develop a voice that is palatable, and eventually be elected to office; and no matter how hard you blog and believe, polling 6% will NEVER get your man elected. I'm not advocating selling out or giving in, just of putting our best foot forward. By becoming a party with a platform that doesn't scare 95% of the electorate away after reading the first 10 words, we increase our ability to change the shape of American politics. God-forbid we might actually win an election or two...

Believe it or not, the clothes you wear to a job interview actually matter, and the quality of your grammar matters, and the packaging of your ideas and philosophy matter. There was a time in my young idealistic libertarian youth when I would have ruffled at such thoughts, but now as a more mature business owner, I know these things to be facts of life. Leading off with ideas such as the dissolution of all borders and the legalization of certain substances and the immediate closing of all government offices does not sound good to the average American, it sounds kooky (even has my name in the article) or even scary. The speaker is immediately demoted to the category of fanatic, and the debate trudges on without him. However, leading with lower taxes, less government control and more freedom is much less abrasive and confrontational, and more likely to win minds and votes. If after reading more about their newly discovered love of liberty, these neophytes move (as I think they will) towards a more pure version of liberty, then that is ok too.

This title can be looked upon as a promise to the average American that I am not some screw-ball who intends to turn America into a borderless, lawless, substance-enhanced orgy. Pure libertarians do not seem to understand this, but that is how the party is currently viewed by many who have gotten the wrong impression after speaking with some or reading a website by some, that is if they have even heard of the libertarian party.

Can we all agree that if the political and economic measures of our countries happiness and success were pictured as a number-line, any move towards Liberty would tend to increase both happiness and wealth? Similarly, any move towards Statism must lead to more unhappiness and decreased prosperity. Thus, any move towards liberty should be viewed as a success, however small, and a whet of The People's desire for more liberty.

I know for some, compromise is a dirty word, but there were quite a few wise men in Philadelphia a couple of centuries back who realized that compromise was the way to start, the way towards the light, the way to begin this great experiment that has been the envy of the whole world. For hidden in some of their compromises was the seed of future freedom for millions. So, if you decide to lump me into this group of learned, well-read "sell-outs", I will take the compliment, for perhaps the word compromise has, when studied, a much deeper meaning and more subtle power than the mere sell-out. Do not doubt there were founders and ratifiers who would have banned slavery from the outset, but to utter such things in public during their time would have been considered kooky (talking about me again), or even scary. But, the seeds of freedom they were able to plant in the founding documents were the beginning of freedom for entire races of Americans; had it not been for their measured compromise on language and moderation of obvious intention, liberty might have been many more decades in coming to those in bondage.

There is no doubt that government is and always will be less efficient than the market in providing services, and be susceptible to abuses of power as would be expected according to the laws of human nature. Any man given power over another will abuse that power; however slight the abuse may seem to him, his servant will feel nothing but the whip. The large majority of the people, if the matter is properly framed, currently believe that government is better suited at providing for such matters as defense and infrastructure, and strict adherence to the constitution prevents such a government from metastasizing. Of course the market can provide virtually every service more efficiently than any other method, but we must move the people slowly back to these forgotten ideals by using gentle wisdom and diplomacy, and calm persuasion. No matter how right our cause, sophomorically clubbing people over the head with liberty has not and will not work.

Over the past eight years the Republican leadership has utterly succumbed to the temptations of empire and has revealed itself as a political prostitute without a care for the Oath. The Democratic Party leadership will, over the next four years, reveal its love affair with Fabian socialism, leaving millions of liberals disenchanted and looking for a different answer. This irrefutable failure of both ideologies will leave a huge leadership vacuum which, if libertarians are willing and able, can be filled with a well-presented, well-spoken constitutional-Libertarian party with a message that appeals to the disgruntled and disappointed from both (formerly) major parties. Former democrats will love our guarantee of personal freedoms and human rights, and reformed Republicans will prosper within our truly free markets free from a withering I.R.S.

This idea if properly framed, widely disseminated and vigorously pursued has the potential to change the face of American government over the next twelve years. The people of the world and The People of America are ripe for this movement back to the American ideal of Liberty. Democrats want personal freedom from government prying, and Republicans want freedom from business regulation; let us give them both, and teach them about Liberty along the way.

The constitutional-Libertarian

Comments (4)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
People really don't understand the consequences of criminalizing every thing they don't agree with. Going back to your "borderless, lawless, substance-enhanced orgy" comment. Think about it, when Churches tried to overstep their bounds and move into government, prohibition got put into place. That prohibition led to the rise of organized crime from both inside America such as the NY/Italian mafias and outside America such as the Columbian drug cartels. Illegal drug use has skyrocketed in the U.S.A. while we pay to imprison people for activities that have little effect on others. Meanwhile, Columbian and Mexican drug lords are getting rich by manufacturing illegal drugs and in turn they pay for illegal immigrants to come here and distribute them. Doesn't it seem like the drug laws have led to crowded prisons, overtaxed legal systems, and growing immigration problems? Meanwhile the drugs are still selling just fine. On top of all that, I see a time coming when others don't like activities such as church membership for instance. Does anyone want to be jailed for that reason? Think about it, jailing people for their own personal activities that do not harm others invites the rest of us to be jailed simply because the majority don't like what we do. I break with many fellow Christians here who call this heresy. Nobody seems to remember the command to treat others as we want to be treated. Doing that honestly means doing so even when we don't approve of others' actions. I believe there should be lines drawn as to what is legal or not. Just remember that if the legal line drawn isn't firm, others will move it to include you. Being in a capitalist society means we can get rich on the backs of others but that doesn't mean we have to. The same can be said for prohibition. Alcohol prohibition was repealed, and America didn't collapse from within. Booze is plenty legal and yet booze sales is decreasing. Personally, I support decriminalization of simple drug possession, and much harsher penalties for manufacturing and dealing. Then you are jailing the providers of drugs and true criminals and removing those who aren't doing such things from weighing down our legal system. Also it would become a States Rights decision to decide who is incarcerated for what activities. I almost always support taking power from the federal government and giving it to the states. I have gone back and forth on this many times and I always seem to arrive at this position.
"Believe it or not, the clothes you wear to a job interview actually matter, and the quality of your grammar matters, and the packaging of your ideas and philosophy matter."

Absolutely True. Good point.
I more readily agree with More Freedom vs. ore Government every time. it kind of goes back that quote which I will paraphrase
"if men were angels then government would be unnecessary"

Given the choice between too much and too little, for my part, I will always side with too little.
1 reply · active 826 weeks ago
Self government is also needed. Just because the stores have beer or cigarettes for instance does not mean that everybody has become alcoholics or drug addicts. Just because we have a semi-capitalist system does not mean all Americans are motivated by greed. I believe that passing laws on morality pushes people to break those laws and makes others curious as to find out what is so bad about those things being banned. The result ends up being more people experimenting with contraband like drugs and prostitution out of a desire to take risks or be rebellious.

Post a new comment

Comments by

Blog Widget by LinkWithin