113th Edition
Libertarianism
I recently read an interesting book – “The Libertarian Mind” by David Boaz. The author sums up the goal of libertarianism at the end of the first chapter. “Libertarianism holds out the goal not of a perfect society but a better and freer one. It promises a world in which more of the decisions will be made in the right way by the right person: you.”
As a long proponent of smaller and less intrusive government, libertarianism sure sounds like a concept worth supporting. But, it does beg a few questions – First, are we ready to make all the decisions that are now made by someone else? What might be some of the prerequisites of prudent decision making? What do we do with those who can’t seem to make responsible decisions? And last, but not least, who gets to decide what is prudent and what isn’t?
As is always the case, public policy gets complicated very quickly. Policies that seem logical and straightforward to some can seem less so if opposing viewpoints are analyzed objectively. Has that become a lost art? It might seem so today, but let’s focus on a different question and think about the prerequisites of prudent decision making. For starters, I think it has to involve alternative viewpoints than just our own existing opinions. We must challenge our entrenched viewpoints from different angles and be willing to adjust as our wisdom and understanding evolves.
Next there should be a time element. What are the likely impacts in the short term as well as the long term? And perhaps most importantly what are the potential consequences, intended as well as unintended, in both the short and long run?
The process should involve a lot of questions and alternative-scenario analysis. It probably should ultimately involve some degree of self-sacrifice, as there are almost always tradeoffs to every decision. Compromise should also be seriously considered if not integrated into the decision process. Dualistic thinking doesn’t always produce the best decisions.
Step back and think about the complexity of all that. In this context, maybe it’s better to leave the most important decisions to someone else, or perhaps an elite group of very smart people?
In their amazing collective wisdom, the Founding Fathers realized the danger in this approach. Fortunately, they understood the inherent infallibility of man and his tendency toward selfishness, greed, and thirst for power. Hence, they did everything they could to prevent the government from getting too centralized or powerful, and they tried to ensure that the government would always serve the people and derive its authority to govern from the people.
How would the Founding Fathers view the current situation today? Would they be disappointed if not shocked by the workings and conduct within the federal government? Conversely, maybe they would remind us that the great experiment in self-government, that our republic represents, is still a work in process. They might point out that America, despite all its faults, remains a bastion for individual rights, liberty, and opportunity. Moreover, they would likely reaffirm that the right to freely express dissatisfaction with government, or even to vehemently oppose the individuals or ideology of those in power, is a critical safeguard to the preservation of our republic. In essence, self-government is inherently messy, complicated, and controversial.
In other words, living with decisions made by individuals and by government agencies at the state and local level, despite the potential that some of their decisions might not be made with prudent or thoughtful analysis, serves as an important barrier to the concentration of power in the hands of elitists. We should be ever mindful of the notion put forth by Lord Acton – “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Which brings the discussion back to how we help everyone involved, individuals as well as governing bodies, make prudent decisions. It might be a good place to start with the Cardinal Virtues, as outlined by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. They are (in brief):
Prudence: Simple common sense. We might strive to have the heart of a child while utilizing a grown-up’s intelligence and experience.
Temperance: Going the right length, but no further. Self-control, and keeping proper perspective.
Justice: Fairness, honesty, truthfulness, and reliability.
Fortitude: Courage in the face of danger or adversity. Guts not to quit when the going gets tough.
How might these virtues be taught and instilled in people? They can’t be taught effectively unless they are lived out, demonstrated on a consistent basis. Hypocrisy is a virtue killer.
The good news is that there are people everywhere who embody these virtues. They exist in every walk of life, even in politics. We can all do our best to do the same. It’s called Kingdom Building. Experience and advanced degrees are not necessary. Only faith, grace, and a little humility. And years of practice.
Please help me grow my readership by forwarding this to a friend(s). In the meantime, stay tuned for my next newsletter. Thanks
Michael Kayes
*These views are my personal opinions and are not the viewpoints of any company or organization.