Political Blog

The Libertarian

Or: Why I am right, and you are wrong
Best viewed when listening to “moribond” by Jacques Brel

Accross the world we see today various political ideologies, most of them carrying a rich history of experimentation, others a rich history of theorising, others a rich history of torture, rape and murder.
When theorising about politics, we must realise that we are theorising actively about the life of average Joe (which I will henceforth refer to as Mr Fenderson), and quite a few Mr and Mrs Fenderson at that.
In my view, libertarianism, is a form of government, where the degredation of that government in size is its goal, ergo, it strives for a smaller government. I will show in my following opus that Libertarianism is the best and only political system, and that if you disagree, you are wrong, stupid, foolish and most of all unnatural.

It has been said, since the very beginnings of Western Philosophy (which, let’s be honest is the only system of Philosophy that has evolved in such a manner that it facilitates a more advanced civilization than the world has ever seen before. It spans several continents, and growing, and has given more material wealth, security and longevity than ever before.) that knowledge in itself must be seen with a critical eye. The possession of the truth, it has been suggested, should be looked - if not frowned - upon with a highly critical eye/brow. We see in Socrates, I know only that I know nothing, and before him, Heraclitus, all is moving. This concept stretches on and is eventually reinforced by Friedriech Nietzsche, who also sees the moving universe and rejects religion.

Classical Liberalism carries with itself a large set of political ideas and ideals. Amongst others it has ‘human rights’. These rights are not derived from an external source, but from the vary core itself. They are a declaration of rights that come ‘naturally’ from human being, and must be upheld by civilisation. Naturally? Of course, because a bear or wolf would not think about murdering an innocent child, or its parents in front of it. No. A bear or wolf would recognise that child as being a human being, and immediately recognise its Superior nature. A somewhat nuanced form of reductio ad absurdam, I admit, but it is clear to all who have their eyes firmly opened that human rights are human constructs. That is, constructs of the human mind, not of nature. By that implication, we can condemn them on the basis of not knowing whether the ideas he has are true, or just a fleeting bit of sand that slips through the fingers in a desert of falsehoods.

It has been suggested that this form of post-modernism leads to moral relativism, nihilism and extreme conservativism. I should explain the latter as it not being a reference to the replublican party, but merely a state of non-intervention in the status quo. Ergo, no political philosophy at all.

However, I am compelled to note that I think this is a silly and horrible view. Why? Because it recognises not the influence reality has at us. Verily, it might not exist (whatever that means), but that does not mean that it does not influence us. The philosophy we know and repeat comes from this world. Whether or not those philosophers exist, are mere social constructs, or mere state of minds is irrelevant. We owe something to this reality. What, than? Freedom. We were gifted with the possibility to develop these theories because our society was free.

From post-modernism comes, thus, freedom. Not suffocating oppresion, but freedom. It comes thus that in a nigh-binary world, of libertarianism/oppresionism (let’s be honest. The streams in between have no real philosophical heritage to speak of. They are based on misconceptions or religious ideals that have been proven to only pollute man) it falls upon us to make a choice. Namely, for freedom, or for oppresionism. Now, evil and good, and neutral do not exist as real, existent constructs in such a matter that we need worry about doing the moral thing. We need to worry about doing what we think does the most damage/fun. It all boils down to the concept whether Mr Fenderson is capable. Is Mr Fenderson capable of surviving? Is Mr Fenderson capable of surviving without our help? If you answer no, and ignore that Mr Fenderson might just make the same choice about you, it falls to some ‘ethical’ (in some cultures still referred to as plain annoying) folk to state that we must help them.

Help them. When the fox hears the rabbit scream, he comes a-running. But not to help. Compassion exists in nature, verily, but not as a rule. It is an exception. The rule is that the weak, that which can not take care of itself dies. Society itself was created because the weak were tired of dying, some think/say/repeat. This philosophy is obviously an unnatural one, but can not in itself be condemned. However, it does not follow the concept of freedom that comes from modernism, that has made us what we are. It has been freedom, conflict, war that has been the engine of Europe to produce a nation like the United States of America, to make democracy happen, and shape the womb that gave birth to us philosophers, us political idealists.

Still, if freedom and conflict are not the way, surely contemporary man is ready enough to let go the hands of government, and shake that of his neighbour? After all, the goodness of man is the hand behind many political philosophies. Though a bit too wishful thinking for your dear author, it is a hope-giving thought. Why? Because free or oppressed, man will do good anyway. No amount of evil can move him if he is by nature good! Communism, and its revolution is a silly ideal. A revolution against ‘evil capitalists’ is silly when you believe that man at heart is good. What is goodness if you have to force it in others? Will you kill to awaken this goodness in man? How many will you kill to save mankind? Half of them, three quarters? If the communist ideal, that is, man is at heart good, is true, than it will come forward in capitalism as well. And thankfully, we have Oprah. Whether or not for her image or not, she gave 10 million dollars to the victims of Katrina so they could have houses. Capitalists, those with wealth are not evil men. They are people who have money, yet long for the very same things as a poor man. Verily! They bleed when you prick them.

Eventually, it boils down to the choice whether we are arrogant enough to presume we know what is best for the other. Whether we presume to know better what he can do with his money than us. Are we that arrogant, are we all puissant peasants, or will we say Yes! to life and to freedom, and leave Mr Fenderson to sodomize his son as long as he does it in the privacy of his own house?