A letter from our own Tim Mahar responding to a friend after they took the World’s Smallest Political Quiz.
Hi ***,
Glad I didn't offend; some people though are very touchy unless you agree with them entirely. I too like talking about this stuff - not to persuade you or anyone else, but through the years my viewpoints have changed (evolved?) and I am open to further change. I was a guest host on a local radio station New Years day (probably 3 people listened in) and one of my themes was "What a Long Strange Trip It's Been" talking about the evolution of personal political positions as people grew. In my case from who cares, to biker anarchist, to hippie (although I didn't like the government then either) to Liberal to Libertarian, to Conservative, back to Libertarian.
Working backwards on your comments, I couldn't agree more that liberal and liberty are etymological twins. In fact Libertarians (or libertarians, since I call myself a small "l" Libertarian) define themselves as classical Liberals, which means personal liberty and responsibility, as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. All human relations should be voluntary and peaceful.
I'm not surprised you scored Liberal - many of my friends do, but the ratio is close. Perhaps indicative of the underlying similarity between the government's implementation of liberal and conservative principals (Clinton votes for free trade and welfare reform and Bush expands entitlements.) And, for what it's worth I think I know how you may feel since I felt similarly on many issues.
In any case, I didn't get minimum wage for the convention - but, one of the tenets of Libertarianism is that people can and will volunteer for the benefit of the disadvantaged as well as the common good. I don't remember hearing about the wage scale at the original Constitutional Conventions and for the preparation of supporting treatises such as the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers.
To your specific points, the more I dug, the more I found I agreed with positions that at a superficial level I disagreed. I find that my Liberal friends tend to agree with Libertarian positions on personal freedom issues while my Conservative friends agree with Libertarian free market positions. Which of course makes sense; but I find it interesting that in each case, there is the belief that the government is benevolent, competent and efficient managing one aspect of our lives, while at the same time being malevolent, incompetent, and inefficient in another area of our lives. IT'S THE SAME GOVERNEMENT! And, it's precisely because we have our weaknesses as "fallen angels" that it's important to keep an all powerful government out of their hands (no matter which side we tend to agree with, there is that insidious "dark side") For example, a Charles Manson is a tragedy; an Adolph Hitler is a horror. In the same vein, not only does power corrupt, power draws the already corrupt. The power of government almost inevitably falls into the wrong hands; at the best it is a terrible waste of resources, at its worst, we have Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and too many more to enumerate.
It's not just the pathological misfits either. As bad, or maybe worse are those that want to "help" us. I think it was Emerson or Thoreau that said "if I knew someone was coming to my house with the intention of doing me good, I should run for my life." The Spanish inquisition (nobody expects the Spanish inquisition) wasn't put in place to make life miserable for people; it was to "save" their souls. Prohibition wasn't put in place to take away the one pleasure some people had, it was "for our own good." So, I am not sure these are the best to oversee us "fallen angels." As for resolving happenstance economic inequities or racial heritage, the government seems to be similarly ineffective. I, like most people, think we have a responsibility to help those who get shuffled to the bottom of the deck through no fault of their own, or even through their own fault if they want to recover. Prior to large government programs this was pretty effectively handled by private charities with the benefit that the recipients never perceived it as an entitlement knowing that it came from their friends and neighbors (my family received such) and both felt obligated to do their best to rise up and to do the same when they did so. An economical consideration is that in this form of direct charity almost every cent got to the recipients while if the government manages to get 20 cents out of a dollar to recipients I'd be surprised.
So, we can't allow government in the hands of the bad or the good, all that is left are the average people. These may be the worst of the bunch, since they become the unthinking bureaucrats who unthinkingly oversee and administer programs that destroy lives. "I vas yust doink my yob."
OK, on to race where this country has a tragic legacy. Slavery was common at all times throughout the world and throughout history, but the US engaged in a particularly insidious version where in order to accommodate our principals (all men are created equal) we denied the humanity of slaves. There's no excuse for it and there is nothing we can do to change the past and make it right. But government didn't fix this. Civil rights legislation didn't cause a change in national opinion - it reflected it. I don't believe that any politician exhibited personal courage by voting for civil rights, but rather reflected the wishes of their constituencies as usual. And, by the way, a greater percentage of Republicans voted for civil rights than did Democrats. The rights of blacks had been expanding since WW II. If you look at any metric regarding the wellbeing of blacks, they were improving before the legislation was enacted. If you look at similar metrics following government involvement, they are tanking. Government programs have destroyed family formation, education levels, increased criminal activity (much due to drug laws that Libertarians would remove) and created welfare dependency. Blacks, who were forming vital communities in the 50's now feel entitled or have given up hope. This is government's fault. At the same time, government programs are polarizing the white and black communities.
Finally, in my opinion, insurance policies are the epitome of Libertarianism. Insurance is risk management and we can individually decide what risks we need to manage. For example, 25 year olds that don't smoke, eat well, exercise and don't engage in risky behavior, whether it is skydiving or using drugs, might very well determine that they don't need medical insurance. Or, they might decide to purchase a catastrophic insurance policy to protect against, well, catastrophes. On the other hand late middle-aged persons may choose to get full coverage with a low co-payment even though it costs much more. The point being is that every person can decide what risks they face, the likely consequences of them and determine how to manage that risk. Contrast that with a government program where you have no say in what benefits you receive, have no options for competitive solutions, and end up with a "one size fits all" solution that doesn't really address any single person and tries to accommodate all possible risks. As usual, if the government administers it, it will be monopolistic meaning it will be over priced and under perform.
Wow, I guess I blithered on. Sorry about that, but in summary, I do believe there is a place for government, but there are only a few things it does well or better than private solutions, and the more they take on beyond those few things, they don't do especially well, and distract them from the ones they do. The government should assure that no person or group can use or threaten force against another person or group, should provide an environment where people can engage in voluntary agreements and have them enforced, defend us from threats from outside, maintain a stable currency, provide a very limited set of programs for the common good, and that's about it.
OK, now that I've babbled, I promise to read anything you choose to reply. Remember, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Vote Libertarian.
All the best,
Tim
PS I sent the puzzle to a bunch of people, with no responses. Did you get any?
-----Original Message-----
From: ***
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 2:59 AM
To: Tim Mahar
Subject: Re: Paid Political Announcement
Hi Tim,
Thanks for the announcement - sure hope you got paid minimum wage!!! (I took the political quiz and it turns out I'm liberal [80/20]).
Seriously, I like talking about this stuff, so there's no need to apologize. I agree with most Libertarian positions on personal freedom issues, because every person is unique, but I don't always trust us fallen angels on the economic ones. Those should answer to a representative government, not just private charities, because of racial (legacy) or happenstance economic inequities among people and nations.
For example, I don't suppose you've cancelled all your insurance policies for the sake of freedom. Interestingly enough, I have no insurance whatsoever (medical, property, disaster, etc.), except for government-required car insurance. Can you say the same, or are you relying on a private, actuarial "government" to bail you out in need?
Remember, liberty and liberal are etymological twins! Oust Bush, Vote Kerry.
***
