Troubadour
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 464
- Reaction score
- 181
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Libertarianism is not "the" answer to America's problems, but that does not mean it doesn't have some answers to some questions - at least within proper context. So I would like to offer subscribers to that viewpoint a bit of constructive criticism that may help them be more positive contributors to American politics.
1. If you are an American, then the systemic problems of its government, its economy, and its society are your problems.
Nobody wants to hear you talk about all the issues you don't care about. You may think something isn't your problem, but obviously it has consequences that are your problem or else you wouldn't bother talking about it. For instance, if Problem X results in Policy Y, and you oppose Policy Y, then clearly you have an interest in dealing with Problem X in order to remove the rationalization for Policy Y.
You may feel you shouldn't have to take responsibility for Problem X, but one way or another you do: If you don't, someone else will, and their solution will be far less likely to take your views into consideration if you simply oppose any attempt to deal with the problem. Because, once again, nobody cares that you don't care - you might as well walk into a restaurant and start loudly complaining that you're not hungry.
2. Don't deny the existence of problems arising from ideas you support.
Nothing is perfect in the real world, so regardless of what your ideas are they will result in problems if applied in practice. You may not care about those problems, but as noted in #1, your indifference is irrelevant: Either you will provide ideas to deal with them, or someone else will address them in ways you oppose. Being honest and constructive about the consequences of your ideas is a major step toward realizing them.
3. If you can't think of a better solution than one you oppose, concede the issue until you do.
Blanket opposition is the mark of dishonest participants interested only in playing power games. By conceding an opponent's ideas in the absence of a practical alternative, you show that you are engaged constructively with your fellow citizens to improve our country, and are not simply waging ideological war to dominate them. You don't have to say they're right, just that theirs is presently the best practical option.
4. Be prepared to be wrong.
Human beings are often wrong, so don't be enraged when confronted with facts suggesting you are. That doesn't mean a given idea you support is intrinsically insupportable, but the facts may indicate that under specific conditions, your idea will not succeed. If this is the case, be prepared to acknowledge the information and modify your idea: It will become stronger and more likely to make a solid contribution when subjected to an honest learning process. Refusing to acknowledge failure is not success - it is the most total failure possible. You may have legitimate circumstantial reasons to feel that a failure has not actually occurred, but if you cannot in all of history identify a single instance where ideas you support failed to succeed because they were not suited to the problems at hand, then you are not seriously examining them: Every idea has failed somewhere, for some reason.
5. Speak to the viewpoints of all involved sectors of society
The libertarian perspective arises strongly from the viewpoint and lifestyle of the affluent private business-owner, home-owner, and (tangentially) member of majority identity groups. This is perfectly valid in itself, but far more often than not these are the only groups whose interests are even acknowledged by libertarian commentary. Be aware of - and respectful toward - the viewpoints and interests of renters, wage-earners, the unemployed, public sector workers, union members, racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and other groups who together represent the American people.
Don't insult people by acting as though the only valid way to benefit them is to make their employers and landlords richer: The interests of the average American are not the same as those of businesses and landlords, and are often at cross-purposes, so acknowledge those differences and address them. Modify your ideas to take those differences into account.
6. Come up with a more honest name for yourselves.
Anyone who identifies themselves by a term so fraught with connotations as "libertarian" should probably be more interested in actual liberty than with waging a perpetual Holy War against taxation. But the reality is the exact opposite: Taxes are the central concern of libertarianism, and exhaust the vast majority of its rhetoric, its activism, and its policy proposals. Matters like human rights, due process, search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, equal protection, ending drug prohibition, etc. occupy a relative minority of their time and resources compared to angrily denouncing welfare programs.
So I would suggest a more appropriate term for people whose focus is mainly on reducing taxes and public spending: Propertarianism. Property, not liberty, is clearly the central value of a viewpoint that does not think torturing people is worse than taxing them; that is violently offended by the thought of some poor guy getting by on the taxpayer dime, but can only muster qualified criticism of the most expensive, least accountable bureaucracy in the US government - the Department of Defense. I urge anyone whose views fit this description to adopt the more accurate term, Propertarian, and openly contrast your opinions with those of libertarians for whom basic human rights are obviously a much higher priority than fiscal policy.
1. If you are an American, then the systemic problems of its government, its economy, and its society are your problems.
Nobody wants to hear you talk about all the issues you don't care about. You may think something isn't your problem, but obviously it has consequences that are your problem or else you wouldn't bother talking about it. For instance, if Problem X results in Policy Y, and you oppose Policy Y, then clearly you have an interest in dealing with Problem X in order to remove the rationalization for Policy Y.
You may feel you shouldn't have to take responsibility for Problem X, but one way or another you do: If you don't, someone else will, and their solution will be far less likely to take your views into consideration if you simply oppose any attempt to deal with the problem. Because, once again, nobody cares that you don't care - you might as well walk into a restaurant and start loudly complaining that you're not hungry.
2. Don't deny the existence of problems arising from ideas you support.
Nothing is perfect in the real world, so regardless of what your ideas are they will result in problems if applied in practice. You may not care about those problems, but as noted in #1, your indifference is irrelevant: Either you will provide ideas to deal with them, or someone else will address them in ways you oppose. Being honest and constructive about the consequences of your ideas is a major step toward realizing them.
3. If you can't think of a better solution than one you oppose, concede the issue until you do.
Blanket opposition is the mark of dishonest participants interested only in playing power games. By conceding an opponent's ideas in the absence of a practical alternative, you show that you are engaged constructively with your fellow citizens to improve our country, and are not simply waging ideological war to dominate them. You don't have to say they're right, just that theirs is presently the best practical option.
4. Be prepared to be wrong.
Human beings are often wrong, so don't be enraged when confronted with facts suggesting you are. That doesn't mean a given idea you support is intrinsically insupportable, but the facts may indicate that under specific conditions, your idea will not succeed. If this is the case, be prepared to acknowledge the information and modify your idea: It will become stronger and more likely to make a solid contribution when subjected to an honest learning process. Refusing to acknowledge failure is not success - it is the most total failure possible. You may have legitimate circumstantial reasons to feel that a failure has not actually occurred, but if you cannot in all of history identify a single instance where ideas you support failed to succeed because they were not suited to the problems at hand, then you are not seriously examining them: Every idea has failed somewhere, for some reason.
5. Speak to the viewpoints of all involved sectors of society
The libertarian perspective arises strongly from the viewpoint and lifestyle of the affluent private business-owner, home-owner, and (tangentially) member of majority identity groups. This is perfectly valid in itself, but far more often than not these are the only groups whose interests are even acknowledged by libertarian commentary. Be aware of - and respectful toward - the viewpoints and interests of renters, wage-earners, the unemployed, public sector workers, union members, racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and other groups who together represent the American people.
Don't insult people by acting as though the only valid way to benefit them is to make their employers and landlords richer: The interests of the average American are not the same as those of businesses and landlords, and are often at cross-purposes, so acknowledge those differences and address them. Modify your ideas to take those differences into account.
6. Come up with a more honest name for yourselves.
Anyone who identifies themselves by a term so fraught with connotations as "libertarian" should probably be more interested in actual liberty than with waging a perpetual Holy War against taxation. But the reality is the exact opposite: Taxes are the central concern of libertarianism, and exhaust the vast majority of its rhetoric, its activism, and its policy proposals. Matters like human rights, due process, search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, equal protection, ending drug prohibition, etc. occupy a relative minority of their time and resources compared to angrily denouncing welfare programs.
So I would suggest a more appropriate term for people whose focus is mainly on reducing taxes and public spending: Propertarianism. Property, not liberty, is clearly the central value of a viewpoint that does not think torturing people is worse than taxing them; that is violently offended by the thought of some poor guy getting by on the taxpayer dime, but can only muster qualified criticism of the most expensive, least accountable bureaucracy in the US government - the Department of Defense. I urge anyone whose views fit this description to adopt the more accurate term, Propertarian, and openly contrast your opinions with those of libertarians for whom basic human rights are obviously a much higher priority than fiscal policy.