I describe my political views as weakly or moderately libertarian. Wikipedia says that Libertarianism “refers to the group of political philosophies that emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association without violent coercion.” That sounds about right.
Weak libertarianism is to be contrasted with Ayn Rand’s or Ron Paul’s views, which I would call Strong Libertarianism. The Strong Libertarians believe that governmental force is an evil in and of itself, to be avoided at all costs. They wouldn’t force a rich man to pay extra taxes in order to keep children from starving to death. In their minds, such force is the ultimate evil, worse than anything one can imagine. Of course, most self-described libertarians (such as Penn Jilette) would say that they believe in a place for charity, and though they don’t believe in forcing the rich man to fund social services through his taxes, they personally would do it in a heartbeat, and probably wish that such acts of kindness would be done willingly.
Since strong libertarians see force as the ultimate evil, any use of it is to be avoided (aside from using it against those who trample on the rights of others, like murderers and rapists), no matter what the cost. After all, nothing can be worse than the greatest evil, and so even terrible poverty, the general collapse of society, anything you can think of- must be accepted if the alternative to such destinations involves government force. I disagree profoundly with that philosophy. I think what most of us want is a government that will set up some ground rules that result in the happiest and fairest society possible. By this I don’t mean that the government has the responsibility of setting up a utopia. I just mean that the rule makers ought to look at all the possible rules that they might enforce, and select the rules that will best promote a prosperous and healthy society.
And I think that the way to do that, generally speaking, is to let individuals make their own choices. To let them be free. To give them liberty (hence “libertarianism). I am not saying that the government should never regulate trade, human behavior and ownership, etc. Of course it should. But as a rule (a rule with plenty of exceptions) the government ought to stay out of how people run their own lives.
My dedication to liberty is seen in my support for the legalization of marijuana, prostitution, and gay marriage, among other things. Why? Let’s start with the most controversial one, prostitution. Bunny Ranch owner Dennis Hof raises several good points in favor of legalizing prostitution:
– Legalizing takes the power away from those willing to break the law (aka criminals) and results in better treatment for the women involved.
– Legalizing allows regulation (checking for STDs, for example, which will reduce the rate of transmission and lead to better public health).
– Legalizing keeps the money spent within the local economy (when prostitution is illegal, those from poorer countries often come in and get into the prostitution business, only to take the money they earn back overseas). It also allows those who work in the prostitution business to pay taxes, whereas prohibition usually results in money being made under the table.
The reasoning behind legalizing other things, like marijuana, is similar: prohibition doesn’t work in most situations. It didn’t work with alcohol. It hasn’t worked with prostitution. It hasn’t worked with the war on drugs (note: I’m not sure that all drugs ought to be legal, but marijuana probably should be).
All that said, there are a few cases where we would prefer the free market to be jettisoned in favor of state or socially owned mediums. Like the public highways, or the military, and probably healthcare, as well.
So, I am a weak libertarian. Hear! Hear!
