I’ve had to say goodbye to voluntaryist libertarianism. Not completely of course, and I’ll still call myself libertarian for lack of a better quick identifier. However, I can’t go along with many libertarians on issues based on ideals which cannot work.
One in particular is complete lack of market protectionism. Libertarians dislike market intervention–and so do I, however, a NATION should take some measures to protect it’s internal job market. We are seeing the effects of FREE TRADE and it has killed us economically. It has added the entire world to OUR JOB MARKET. Imagine if the goods from the rest of the world cost the same–but weren’t as good as our own products. Would you buy cheap crap from China if it cost the same as a quality American product? We would see prosperity–lasting prosperity. We don’t even need to export– our consumer market thrives just fine on it’s own–hell it supports massive nations like China and India (for now), but the jobs here are fewer and fewer ever since free trade agreements eroded our market, leaving us with a crappy service economy sliding into poverty.
Libertarians for the most part believe in free trade. They champion the cause of voluntaryism–and so do I, but force is necessary when someone violates my rights. The job market is mine as a birthright, no one else is entitled to my livelihood. Take that whatever way you will, because I don’t apologize for being an American any longer. I celebrate and practice that which has made us so rich, and if other nations want the same then they should strive to be more like us rather than wanting a piece of the pie. Several times in this nation’s history there existed NO internal taxation. Yes–no internal taxation to run the government. And really when the government does only what it should do and nothing more, internal taxes aren’t necessary. The functions of the government were paid for by tariffs–something completely impossible now because of free trade.
Open borders are something which I will never see as a good thing. Borders are what separates one nation from another. Yes, I have to actually spell that out, because lots and lots of libertarians don’t understand that. Without borders there is no national sovereignty, there is no country. It is then a region, or a zone–but not a country. Without sovereignty we can be told what to do by a foreign nation. Why don’t we go around to every nation in the world and force them to conform to our standards? Because they are sovereign nations. They have a government which makes the laws and this is meant to protect them from foreign rule. The EU is a region. The former countries contained within are de facto STATES. Many of their laws come from Brussels, and the supreme law of the land comes from there. Let me ask you this–if you lived in Slovenia, would you be ok with your laws being made in Belgium? What would you think if a law was handed down by a regional government that you disagreed with? What could you do? Can you see what a slippery slope this is?
Brings me to the last thing I can’t agree with libertarians on….government. I’m a minarchist. I believe in as little government as possible, and everything government does should be of clear and necessary benefit to all citizens. Government is like fire folks–highly useful in very small and controlled amounts. Too much fire and everything is destroyed–and that’s what we are seeing now, but voluntaryist libertarians seem to want no government. I’m open to the idea of privatizing law enforcement, or even more creative solutions like citizen police who volunteer to protect their own neighborhood–in absence of government this is what would naturally occur. But no law? No way of defending the liberty of people because there is no arbiter whatsoever to determine what is law? That I cannot agree with. It’s just impractical.
I think that the voluntaryists are putting people off from libertarianism, and forcing people to continue aligning with the left and right. They are taking their ideals too far into the realm of impracticality.
I think I’m part of the “don’t know” party. I don’t know who to identify with, but I think that I’m not alone, and might even be part of a majority which does not yet have a voice. Really we should do what WORKS, and leave the idealism behind. If something is a proven failure stop doing it, if something has been successful let’s do that. Really all we should be arguing about (as intelligent and rational people), is the measured success of an idea–not the intent behind the idea, not the group-think associated, but rather “is this successful?”, and “will it be successful when applied to the demographic it relates to?”.
I want to see an end to unworkable ideals. Idealism is naive, myopic, and very dangerous because of the zealots who want to force their ideals on others. Idealism is uncompromising, and sometimes compromise must happen because we’re all different. World improvers can be the worst of oppressors, as they truly believe they are correct, and that what they want is in your best interests.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts and ideas. I hope that they’ve caused you to think. As always, thanks for reading.