It’s hard to imagine that in less than a year we’ll start seeing the two major political parties in this country vying, once again, for their turn to make all of the wrong decisions in the executive branch of our nation’s government. I’m talking about the 2008 presidential election, of course. Since we’re watching the rapid approach of what will likely be another travesty, I decided to express my biggest concern with choosing the candidate for whom I want to vote.
I should start out by telling you that in the last election I voted for the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. In fact that is the only party that has ever received my votes. But not long after the election I started doing some reading and thinking and I don’t think that justice is nearly as important in any libertarian as it should be. I suppose I should qualify what I mean by justice before going on. in scripture the Israelites were commanded to show kindness to the those who were weak. The picture that is painted in much of the Levitical and Deuteronomic literature could best be summed up as an ethics of need. The reason that I can write-off a whole group of people in this regard is that Libertarians are notorious for their belief in human autonomy and social compartmentalization. In their view the government and private sector (everyday life) need to be separated or liberty is lost. They believe that it is the job of the private sector to care for people in whatever ways are necessary.
I suppose I could say that I do like their use of the term liberty but there’s just too much separation between what liberty is to them and what it is to me. While they maintain that liberty is simply autonomy I belief that the evil in us and the destruction that it causes means that liberty is not found in fewer boundaries. Liberty is found when I must serve and accept the service of others. And to be perfectly honest I’m not too terribly sure that government needs to be separated from that. In fact, it seems that the best examples of the private sector these days are corporations. It we remove restraint from many (if not most) of the large corporations, the result is hardly an elevation of the democratic franchise of all people. The needs of the people for good food, clean air and healthy communities are trampled on by the desire of stock holders to make profits. That is just tyranny in private hands. I think that there are much more acceptable and thoughtful ways of thinking of liberty than to say that as long as the government isn’t crossing any lines things are fine.
And there’s my problem, it’s hard to find a party that is saying that in the US. I hope to hear some thoughts on this subject.
Grace and Peace,
Jared
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I suppose the problem that I have and did not do a very good job of expressing is that the dichotomy between public and private is a false one. It seems to be based on the idea that things start and stop with individuals and move out to form societies. Think about the way that so many people view wealth in the US. If wealth were limited to money it would there would be no need to break it down and examine it, it would be a private thing. I could have my money and you could potentially become as wealthy as me. But wealth is more than just coins, bills and numbers. We have to factor in the things that are produced and thus desired; the work that making those things takes; and the control of the resources from which those things were made. Wealth is actually the best example of privatization in our culture; things that are public (land, water, trees, animals, etc.) are claimed by some and called private. But how can food and land be claimed by some when they are something that we all need to survive. If (and this is a big ‘if’ too) people had enough land to feed themselves and their families there would be liberty, real liberty. If (more ‘if’ huh?) we viewed the world around us as just that, the world around us, of which we are a part, there would not be a need to systematize this exclusion into a form of economics that co-opts isolation rather than shunning it. If we’re not even willing to engage the world around us on mutual terms where we’re not the only participants benefiting, we’re isolating ourselves from our own humanity.
Think about how all of this translates into our relations with each other. If we’re constantly ‘othering’ (to borrow Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza’s term) by keeping those not in our circle out of our circle we’re depriving others of parts of their humanity as well. That is a problem that affects humans privately and publicly. So how are libertarian ideals and the Libertarian party responding to that? I don’t think that they are. They seem more to me to be saying that any intrusive act by a government to answer the problems of alienation is wrong, what we need is private sector responses. In what way is this adequate? The basis of libertarianism seems to be ‘leave me alone, don’t place expectations or orders on me that I don’t want.’ That’s simply ignoring the problems of isolation and exclusion that create the very need for ethics in general. The man who wants to insulate his existence from unwanted visitors is, in essence, a thief and a tyrant, telling others where they can and can’t go, touch, use or eat. Tyranny is not an adequate response to tyranny.
If you’d like to know what my response looks like, so do I. that’s the purpose for this blog and the community I live with; to serve Jesus and figure out what love and good look like when they’re lived out. I honestly believe that the answer for all of these problems is Jesus; he is the one who has made and keeps everything from totally descending into chaos. That may sound a bit trite, but he has to be the center of my thinking. I hope to continue this conversation later. I also hope I made some sense.
Grace and Peace,
Jared
I wasn't actually saying what I think. That's not my view, just the questions that I have for libertarianism. The biggest criticisms I have of it is that it begins with the individual. Why do you think that cooperation is secondary? I don't see that as the natural order of things. Humans don't exist in isolation from one another naturally, so it doesn't make sense to assume that personal interests are more important than community and all of the things that go with.
I don't claim to have the answers, but I have questions that don't allow me to accept the basic elements of self-interest and individualism as begining points in morals, ethics or what have you.
By the way, I'm not espousing fairness but justice. I'll get to that later though.
I don't think that a dictatorial system that dispenses resources to whomever they see fit. It may sound like I'm supporting some for of communism, but that is just because communist see the same injustice that I see and want to address it without any substantial changes to the views of what is real, natural or necessary for human civlization. They have the same Modern view of reality that things should be the way they are without the corruption. They think that things can be fixed by putting noses to the grindstone and just trying.
I think that our relationships need to be redeemed by Jesus in his resurrection. We are corrupt and need to keep that in mind and not think that we are the solution to a problem other than ourselves.
I wanted to respond to some things that you said in your last comment.
"the choice of 'humans' over the historical word, 'people'. This is an evolutionary-materialistic term in that it gives no nod to the spiritual. Humans are an invention of nature through natural selection"
I use the terms human and person interchangably. That may be wrong of me, but it's what I do. I don't deny the evolution of man through natural selection. Nor do I feel that I'm sacrificing spirituality in accepting evolution either.
"And that last brings forth yet another non-materialist possibility: that people do not exist naturally at all, in the evolutionary sense."
Right now, no we don't exist naturally. We live in societies that ignore the needs of all human beings. There is no economic system that takes people into consideration. There are always people who are considered okay to ignore. The needs of billions of people to food, shelter, etc. are completely disregarded by the those who dominate those things.
"Then neither one, self-interest nor cooperation, is primary over the other."
I don't think that they are. I think that self-interest is found and enhanced in true cooperation. I would actually say that we need loving cooperation. That is an attitude of sacrifice that puts others above one's self and accepting some suffering for others. That may not seem like self-interest but it is if the goal is true humanity.
If that seems like nonsense, let me know. I'll do my best to work through my thoughts and, hopefully, clarify.
I really have enjoyed this conversation. I don't get the opportunity to discuss this kind of thing. I'm sure it shows.
Thanks!
Post a Comment