Neither Left Nor Right By Doug Carkuff
(2010-01-03 at 13:11:59 )

Neither Left Nor Right By Doug Carkuff

I have always taken it as a good thing that libertarians are detested by
both the left and the right. To me it is proof positive that we
libertarians are in the right. After all, both the left and the right are
fundamentally the same - authoritarian statists who wish to use the force
of government to make society in their own images and to compel others to
live in ways that they approve of. And let us be honest, both the left
and the right do truly hate us and whatever we may ostensibly have in
common with either - say free markets with the right and human rights
with the left (of course neither really supports either except in
qualified and conditional ways) – what they find detestable about us
involves fundamental differences which can never be overcome as long as
they remain Left and Right, as long as they remain wedded to that
Dialectic.

I will be honest, at this point in my life I find political philosophy to
be tiresome or maybe I have just become tired and lazy. Beyond
considering the merits of minarchism versus anarchism I do not like to go
much into any of it anymore. Debates about the implications of the
privatization of this particular thing versus government control of that
seem to me pointless. From my perspective, if you believe you own your
own life, if you believe in liberty, there is nothing to debate. You are
never going to convince anyone who does not believe in or understand
Liberty in a meaningful way to come over to your side. At best, the
Arguments will all be Utilitarian in nature and both sides are going to
make counter arguments which are often essentially meaningless - what if
this scenario occurred or what would happen in that particular
circumstance.

Do not get me wrong, I very much enjoy watching YouTubes of my
Libertarian Heroes - most associated with LewRockwell.com and Mises and
way too many to mention. And, of course, the great Dr. Paul - but when I
see a libertarian debate a statist of whatever stripe the futility of it
is tiring. It is as though they are talking different languages. It is
particularly trying when I see what we often refer to as a Beltway
Libertarian (think Cato, Reason) debating a main stream Progressive or a
main stream Conservative. The feeling I get is that they are pretending
at disagreeing, both of them really committed to never changing anything
fundamentally.

The bottom line is that I have been troubled by the inability of
Libertarians in general to make any substantial inroads into the minds
and hearts and thinking of most Americans, which is fairly ironic when
you consider that the values on which this country was founded and the
values continually espoused when speaking reverently about this country
are distinctly Libertarian Values. Funny how they sound so foreign and
unfathomable (and dangerous), except in the abstract, to so many devoted
Americans. It is fine to talk about dedication to liberty, but it is
something else altogether to actually consider living by the principles
of liberty. It strikes me that whenever Libertarians and those who are
suspicious of libertarians talk they invariably talk past each other. It
strikes me that our approach as Libertarians has been off the mark. We
are never going to win by talking principles and philosophy. The only way
we are going to reach those who can not hear us now is to show them what
they are missing and what they are losing by being afraid to seriously
consider Liberty and the kind of world they could inhabit by embracing
the Principles of Liberty.

Also invariably critics on the left accuse libertarians of being Selfish
and Greedy and being for rich people and against ordinary people. This
charge is so far off the mark and beside the point it is almost
impossible to respond to. It is like accusing a computer of being short.
It has nothing to do with what a computer is. But we get stuck in those
kinds of arguments. For me, the best or at least most effective argument
for Libertarianism is that it is the one approach to governance that has
the greatest hope of producing a humane society. The problem is to find a
way to explain to people why that is so. Progressives like to consider
themselves humane and singular in their concern for their fellow man. I
do not doubt the good intentions of those who consider themselves
progressive (although, given the history of mankind you would have to be
somewhat dim to believe collectivism of any sort can lead to anything
except misery and misery primarily for the most vulnerable and
unconnected), but they seem not to be able to see the implications and
Unintended Consequences of their Philosophy.

Moreover, they tend to be primarily concerned with how they feel about
their supposed altruism rather than the actual consequences of their
initiatives. There are multitudes of examples of the way good intentions
and supposedly progressive legislation has led to the suffering of those
it is intended to help. This current recession/depression is a typical
example, due in large part to the Ownership Society Initiative which was
Intended to put anybody who wanted one into a home of their own. It
sounded good, but where are so many of those people now? How many of
those people who could not pay their mortgages with their teaser rates
are now On The Street And Have Nothing?

This new healthcare plan will almost certainly lead to the same sort of
thing. How many small businesses will go under or not be started at all
and how many other businesses will cut back, all of which leading to job
losses for those who need jobs the most. Again, the most vulnerable will
end up Suffering For The Good Intentions of Those who Think They Know
Best How To Arrange Society. And then there is the current hysteria over
global warming - sorry, climate change. How many of those who can least
afford it will suffer the consequences of programs like cap and trade or
carbon taxes? The List Is Really Endless.

For many progressives it all seems to be about how they feel about
themselves and the sense of self-righteousness that their Generosity
affords them. Of course, self-righteousness is hardly the domain of the
left. Having lived through the reign of terror of the Religious Right
and their devotion to their belief that they are Gods true
representatives on earth, well, it was scary stuff. The left thinks they
are on the side of the angels and the right thinks God is on their side.
Libertarians do not presume that they can divine the intentions of the
almighty beyond the fundamental belief that we are all created equal and
are endowed by our creator (whatever Creator means to you) with certain
Inalienable Rights.

The central libertarian principle is the principle of nonaggression.
Taken to its logical conclusions it pretty much covers everything that is
the cause of so much consternation in the life of our society. You would
think that no one could possibly have a problem with this principle, but
many people do. In order for the nonaggression principle to mean anything
you have to believe you own yourself and, by extension, that you own the
fruits of your endeavors. For any statist/collectivist self-ownership is
conditional. In other words, you only own yourself to the extent society
says you own yourself which is really the same as saying you do not own
yourself at all. You can make the decisions about your life that society
-the state says you can make. Ultimately and inescapably, in the statists
view, society/the state owns everything and anything you own, including
yourself - You Only Own Conditionally.

If you follow that logic then society cannot aggress against you since
they own you. They cannot aggress against your property, since it is
really societys property. It is amazing to me how many are comfortable
with this perspective on things. Without Self-ownership the Nonaggression
Principle Means Nothing. It may be that people do not generally recognize
how they are owned by society/the state and unless they are personally
and painfully inconvenienced by their Lifetime Indenturement or Their
Serfdom. Until it is Your Property Being Appropriated by the State by
Eminent Domain and until it is you who is prevented from finding relief
from your illness by laws dictating what substances you may or may not
ingest into your own body you can continue to pretend to yourself that
you are sovereign over your own existence. You can argue until you are
blue in the face that Conscription and Income Tax are both forms of
Slavery and are Unjust in their Conception, but until people feel it in
their gut, they will not get it. It is just the price we pay for being
FREE.

If you ask virtually any American if they are Free the vast majority will
tell you yes, this in spite of the multitude of ways we are not free.
Most Germans thought they were free under Hitler. You are free only to
the extent the government and society does not want anything from you
beyond what you are already willing and ready to give and if you were to
decide you were not willing and ready to give those things you already do,
you would quickly see how Free You Are Not. My argument and the argument
of most libertarians is that personal, individual liberty over all
aspects of our lives is the only way to achieve all the legitimate,
defensible desires of both the right and the left. It is the Rational
Hope For Ever Having A Humane Society With Liberty And Justice For All
And The only Way For Both The Right And The Left To Ever Get The Things
They Claim Matter To Them Is To Risk Embracing Liberty In All Aspects Of
LIFE.

This is what we are not communicating to those who oppose us. What they
do not see is that we want all of the things that they legitimately want,
but we actually have a way to achieve it. If you want social justice, it
is only Liberty that can give it to you. If you want Prosperity and
Opportunity and Sustainability, if you want Equality (in a legitimate
sense), if you want peace and commerce and goodwill between men, Liberty
Is The Best Hope For Achieving Those Things. Libertarians are also often
accused of being Utopian and that for real liberty to work we must all be
men of goodwill and compassion. This is exactly wrong. It is Those who
Think they can Fashion Society to Fit some Ideal they Imagine who are
Utopian. Libertarianism is the only political philosophy which actually
takes into account the fallibility and corruptibility of man by
recognizing that the Last Thing we should do is give men Power over the
Lives of Other Men. If man cannot be trusted to govern their own lives as
the left and right believe, then how can they possibly be entrusted with
the power to govern the lives of others? They like to believe that the
best and the brightest will Gravitate toward positions of authority over
others. Talk About Utopian. The message we need to get across that we
have not is that it is Liberty with all its Implications - for each of us
individually, for commerce and enterprise and for everything else - that
is the best hope for the kinds of society both the left and right dream
of. A society where all men can live in peace and prosper and pursue
happiness and find social justice and equal opportunity and learn to love
his fellow man. There is a reason why that ubiquitous Ron Paul Revolution
sign had the word Love highlighted in it. If you really love your fellow
man Set Him Free to Chart his own Course and to Follow his own Dreams
instead of some dream the Collective has dreamed for him.

Set People Free To Be Everything They Can Be And The Human Race Can
Achieve Things We Can Now Only Dream Of.

January 2, 2010

Doug Carkuff lives in the southern tier of central NY, and has worked as
an analytical chemist and researcher for a pharmaceutical company for 25
years. Has a 17-year-old son of whom he is very proud. Dreams of owning
40 acres and having a couple cows and herd of goats.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or
in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.