I think that libertarians are 100% right on governance issues.  It would be WONDERFUL if we had a libertarian population and a libertarian state, running around enforcing contracts between private individuals, killing terrorists and communists, upholding laws against force and fraud to let the markets work optimally, and otherwise butting out of American life.  It would be so great, I would consider it my own version of earthly utopia.

But it isn't going to happen. It's so far from happening that it isn't even funny.

Accepting that, and comprehending it, what should be my course of action?  My first choice - libertarian world - isn't on the table. That being the case, to what end should I place my own political energy? Well, it seems to me, I should place my political energy towards ensuring that the meddling state at least meddle in ways that I find congenial. I'd rather have a non-meddling state, but if the majority of my fellow citizens won't accept a non-meddling state, then I want the state to meddle on my behalf and in a way reflective of my own values.

My second choice, in other words, is to work for a conservative world where my preferences have the force of law.

That being the case, it is irrational for me to care about federalism, or civil rights, or the Constitution, other than as tools to get what I want. Those things are oriented towards the libertarian world, where we are all, or most of us, committed to limiting the power of the state. I can't get that, so I want the power of the state to be my slave. My political opponents don't care about federalism et al, other than as a tool to implement THEIR desire to have the power of the state as a slave; they're on the right track.

I want to roll around in big piles of money confiscated from people whose political opinions I find distasteful; there will be a $1,000,000 tax on each liberal expression of opinion by Hollywood stars, paid directly to me. I want my religious values enshrined as the law of the land. I want the countries whose existence I disapprove of to be reduced to smoking ash with an American flag planted in the ruins of their capital. I want the state to massively subsidize art and entertainment I find palatable, and ban art and entertainment I find disgusting. I want government agents to jail people whose familial choices I find incorrect, confiscate their property, and give it to me.

That's my second choice. My first choice, frankly, would be better for everyone - people who believe differently than I do could go about their business unmolested by the state, the government would bow out of cultural considerations and let us each find our own path, people could form whatever kind of families they wanted too, free of the intefering nose of the busybody state. Apparently other people insist on having a powerful state, however, and if we're going to have a powerful state, I want it to act in my interest, not in the interest of other people. 

Am I wrong?

Robert @ 07:17 | | | . | E-Mail This Post