Thursday, February 24, 2011

The Basics of American Libertarianism

The Basics of American Libertarianism

This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on February 24, 2011.

For the second year in a row, Ron Paul, a Republican Representative from Texas, won the straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). The straw poll is seen as an indication of the most conservative voters' choice for a presidential candidate in the next big election.

Ron Paul has long been a darling of the extreme right. But I'm not here to write about CPAC, the straw poll, the 2012 presidential election, nor even Ron Paul specifically. Instead, my topic this week is libertarianism.

Paul is widely seen as one of the most striking examples of a libertarian, and his rise to the top in the CPAC straw poll may signal a resurgence of libertarian sentiment in the far right wing of the conservative mindset.

The United States is host to the Libertarian Party, self-described as our third largest party, in terms of registered members. The Libertarian Party describes itself thusly:

"Our vision is for a world in which all individuals can freely exercise the natural right of sole dominion over their own lives, liberty and property by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office, and moving public policy in a libertarian direction."

Taken at face value, this statement sounds appealing. Boiled down to its basics, the statement expands on libertarianism's two basic principles: freedom of thought and freedom of action.

The first of these is easy - I absolutely agree with the principle of freedom of thought. In fact, I think most Americans are on board with this basic principle.

It is in the second basic principle, freedom of action, that libertarians and I diverge. That being said, I agree with the broad idea that people should be allowed to do what they want, when they want, as long as no one else is harmed by it. The principle, though, taken to its logical extremes, quickly becomes troublesome.

The individual is important. But society matters, too. It has an interest in ensuring that its members are not only happy but healthy, too.

For example, under a libertarian state, the unregulated use of any substance would be perfectly fine, and government attempts to regulate those substances would not be allowed. Over time, science has made it clear that use of tobacco products is detrimental to any person's health. There is not a single seriously-reported positive benefit of tobacco consumption.

Recognizing this, we tax tobacco products to the point where they are unaffordable by many; and the revenue is used, in part, to discourage further tobacco use. Such taxes and programs are completely contrary to libertarian principles. Anyone should be allowed to smoke or chew, period.

Similarly, libertarians do not see a place for government in social services. They would much rather see the poor, sick, and elderly taken care of by private charities, with funds willingly donated by individuals. Again, I agree with this in principle, but when reality raises its ugly head, it is clear that relying on private entities is insufficient.

A government such as ours should offer a minimum safety net. It cannot and should not be the only safety net, but in a society where we value human life and dignity above all other things, leaving this role to private charities is wrong-headed.

We often say that we live in a democracy. But this is not true. In a pure democracy, majority always rules. The rights of the minority are not relevant - in fact, "the rights of the minority" is a concept that a pure democracy does not hold. Instead, we live in a society that adheres to democratic principles, taking the best parts of democracy, like "one person, one vote", and integrating them into our own system.

Likewise, libertarianism has a lot of great ideas. Its basic principles of freedom of thought and freedom of action are important to each of us. We accept these libertarian principles in general, and have integrated them into our system, applying modifications for the betterment of all members of our society.

Those who call themselves libertarians must continue to adhere to their principles - it is their right and their duty. If they have ideas that are good for our country as a whole, it is only through their continued advocacy that those ideas will move from the fringes to the mainstream. With Republican Ron Paul as a de facto head of the movement, these principles will get a fair airing, and exposure to ideas is a benefit to us all.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

The Internet: Democracy's Infection Vector?

The Internet: Democracy's Infection Vector?

This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on February 10, 2011.

Abby, a good friend of mine, sent me a photo this past weekend, a photo that sparked a wide-ranging geopolitical discussion between us. It also illustrated something perhaps best described as the inevitability of change in our fast-evolving digital age.

The photo was from Egypt, and at first glance showed nothing particularly unusual: a large group of Muslims in their iconic prostrate kneeling as they attended to one of the basic tenets of their belief system. Salah, or ritual prayer, is to be performed five times a day - even in the midst of political protest.

What was amazing about the photo, however, was what, or rather who, was in the foreground of the photo: Egyptian Christians surrounding their Muslim countrymen, protecting them from pro-Mubarak forces while vulnerable.

The image reminded me of similar scenes and stories from the United States, of neighbors coming to the aid of Muslims who endured attacks from the small-minded in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks. This sort of solidarity is a sign of a culture that values our common humanity enough to overcome the all-too-human distrust of those who are different from us.

Abby said that this photo gave her hope for humanity - not just for the future of Egypt in their time of political turmoil, but for us as a species. That in extreme situations, we can and will come together for the common good.

I share her optimism.

The recent and on-going changes in Tunisia, Egypt, and even Jordan, are all part of a wave of feeling in the Near and Middle East. The feeling that autocracy is not the best way. That despite its flaws, a government founded on true democratic principles is the best way.

Frustratingly, waves of change rush to shore and often quickly retreat. Our own history shows that change can come, but in fits and starts. The equal rights movement had many milestones and setbacks - there were as many Birminghams as there were Rosa Parks. But eventually, over the course of a decade, change did come.

Protesters around the world would do well to follow the example set by Martin Luther King and his fellow warriors for equality. The most important tenet of their movement was peaceful, non-violent protest.

By eschewing violence, they were able to show white America that they were not interested in revenge for the past injustices foisted upon them. They simply wanted to be treated like regular human beings. Though it can mean bloodshed, as seen here and in Egypt as the agents of the status quo fight back, in the long run, non-violence is the best tactic.

The Tiananmen Square protests in China in 1989 seemed to be a turning point for that country, but they turned out not to be - the Communist Party has as firm a grasp as ever in China, though the grasp does seem to have loosened since 1989. This loosening is in large part because of another driving force that Abby and I discussed and which I've already alluded to: The Internet.

That photo of Christians guarding Muslims in prayer? It was sent from an Egyptian's camera phone to Twitter and retweeted across the Internet. It ended up on Flickr, Facebook, Tumblr, and eventually in Abby's mailbox and then mine.

Images are powerful - remember the man who stopped the column of tanks in China. Remember the angry police dogs lurching at marchers in Alabama. And now, praying Muslims in Egypt. Images have always been powerful. But now they have the ability to spread from person to person, country to country, in a matter of seconds.

Imagine a closet Christian in Iran who wants to worship his God in the open, or a Burmese fed up with military patrols on her street, or even a North Korean in line for a rare bag of rice. Imagine what they think when they happen upon such an image. It is not so big a leap to think that these people, who though oppressed have desire for freedom as strong as any of ours, could be the seed that starts a movement in those countries.

The ideal of democracy has been with humanity for millennia. Over time, it has been fragile, sometimes fleeting, susceptible to cults of personality that leverage its draw to entrap people (the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"?). But with the dawning of the digital age, democracy may finally have found its best vector.