Against my own better judgement, I'm becoming more and more convinced that libertarianism as a political ethos is not the best way to secure liberty, and is in fact, self-defeating.
Let me start by posing a question. I would describe libertarianism as the mentality that places liberty as the highest civil good, above other concerns like security or prosperity. Agreed? The question is this: is it the highest good because it is practical (i.e. because as an ideal, it works best to make a society work well), or is it simply intrinsically good (i.e. good in itself, regardless of how it "works" in society).
I believe that answer that I'd get from most true believers is: both. It does work best as a guiding principle in a free, capitalistic society. It's also good in itself, as a matter of principle. An even more sensible answer might be, that when it comes to economic concerns, free markets are best for practical reasons. And when it comes to personal liberties, that's more a matter of principle. Others have described this better than I have, but I'm just trying to say that this is the description of libertarian ideals that I subscribe to.
I'm coming to believe that on both counts, libertarianism fails to live up to it's goals.
"Free markets and limited regulation produce the best economic results for society as a whole."
It's all about jobs, jobs, jobs. If there's anything that every single election cycle has taught us, it's that. A "good" economy, in the eyes of the majority, is one where unemployment is low and wages are not just good, but gaining ground. Despite the "socialist" machinations of our Imperial President Obama I, we're coming off of a decade of record low regulation and taxes for the upper class "job creators". According supply-side economics, this should be trickling down in the form of more job opportunities and general economic vitality. Not so. Besides the fact that we're currently in a pretty deep recession, wages really haven't made much progress at all, despite the fact the worker productivity
is at an all time high.
https://www.google.com/search?q=productivity+up+wages+down&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&rlz=
People are working harder, doing more with less, contributing to overall profitability, yet this boon isn't making it back down in the form of new jobs. The money is traveling up, but not back down. Where is the money going? Well, the money's going to shareholders. Which, from the perspective of a CEO, is entirely correct. The purpose of a corporation is not to employee people; its purpose is to give money back to its shareholders.
It's certainly true that money is being generated, but is that enough to qualify as an improvment to the economy. This has been covered by many liberal politicians, but look at the wealth inequality that's present in the US today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
"The scope of federal government must be limited, because individual liberty is the highest ideal"
I'm not going to mount a long, futile argument regarding which ideal is the highest or most critical. What I will say is this, the federal government is not the only party capable of limiting individual freedom. The bill of rights only guarantees your rights as far as they relate to
the government. The feds certainly have supremacy when it comes to the power to coerce with force, but there are other means of coercion. Those of us who are lucky to be employed right now, probably see ourselves as dependent on that job. There are a number of policies that one must abide by at work, and those aren't necessarily limited to what you do
at work.
Consider also the point of wealth inequality, as it relates to personal liberty. The possibility (possibly the reality) is that with a small group of people controlling a large portion of the wealth of our nation, they'll wield an unhealthy amount of influence over the democratic process. The forms of a democratic republic aren't in danger, but without restraint of the upper class we run the risk of a de facto oligarchy.
OK, so what's my point? What am I proposing? That libertarianism is a bad idea? No, it's excellent to keep the focus on liberty. But the modern libertarian movement is too preoccupied with the Feds. Refocus on this: "In the interest of liberty, and the good of society as a whole, power and wealth should be carefully limited among private and public entities. Any large concentration of wealth and coercive power should be broken up into smaller pieces." This isn't a new idea. Around the turn of the century (1900's), the issue of corporate "trusts" was given a lot of attention. Many polititicans took a stand on this, and spoke of the need to break them up. A more recent example is the breakup of the AT&T Bell System in several smaller, more competative companies. It's worth pointing out that since the breakup, many of the "Baby Bells" have reformed themselves into powerhouses, through mergers and acquisitions that were not adequately restrained by the government (AT&T and Verizon being the two biggest examples).
I have no doubt that many would dismiss this out of hand, since it involves government intervention into the private sector. Too bad. If you think that you've got a better ally in wealthy stockholders than you do in your local congressman, you're gravely mistaken.
You see, when a movie is bad, truly bad, there is something to be gained from it. A lesson, perhaps. Or a laugh. I'm not sure. The point is, a bad movie is a joke. We all like jokes, don't we? Yes, of course we do.