The O'Reilly video I watched the other day plus a recent reading of Justin Webb's Blog (the North America editor for BBC) led me to the libertarian homepage. Wow, this platform is crazy - you should check it out: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml.
I definitely am not a libertarian; I don't think a lot of their policies would work out too well if unleashed on the entire population. And unleashed is not a randomly chosen word- I think it's one the libertarians would choose themselves- "Run free, Americans, Run free!"
For example, their stance on Freedom of Religion:
Issue: Government routinely invades personal privacy rights based solely on individuals’ religious beliefs. Arbitrary tax structures are designed to give aid to certain religions, and deny it to others.
Principle: We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain from) any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others.
This is weak. How can you defend the rights of an individual who says it's his right to pray in school when another individual says it's his right not to have to listen to the other guy praying? Lines have to be drawn somewhere.
Simply check out the opening paragraph of their preamble to see where the basic principle goes wrong:
Preamble
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
In a recent reading of Outline of U.S. History published by the U.S. Department of State, I found that I have a leaning towards "republicanistic" views. Republicanism is the idea that one is inherently entitled to certain unalienable rights, but that those rights should be subordinate to "communal responsibility" and "self-denying virtue," especially among the nations leaders. Republicanism was almost chosen over individual rights by our nation's founders as the rally cry for independence. What a different history (and present) we would have if the phrase "your benefit" rose above the cries of "my rights."
I also disagree with the libertarian foreign policy. This world is astronomically more interconnected today than it was 230 years ago. It is impossible for the United States to not be involved. Even if you don't think we should be proactively involved overseas, then you would have to at least concede that we must be reactively - what happens abroad affects us at home; wars, famine, economic and political crises, environmental issues - we cannot wash our hands and leave the world alone. Since we must be involved, let's go at it with knowledge, tact, sensitivity and intelligence.
Those are the qualities that I think should be representing and running our country. Those who display historical and current knowledge, use tact in their interpersonal communication, are sensitive to the complex issues surrounding us today, and display intelligence that permeates through all of this and appears in all aspects of their person will receive my vote. I care less about individual policies and more about a candidate's overall platform and character. I cannot be informed on every issue or understand the social science behind every policy so I have to trust representatives to put their lives and efforts into governing for me.
This is not to excuse myself from the responsibility of seeking knowledge and understanding. I will pursue these as well- it’s just that at the moment mine’s not on a global scale nor do my actions affect literally millions of people on a daily basis. I hope one day to be involved on a larger scale, but I’ve got a lot of work to do before I get there. For now I have to plug along on my daily basis reading, talking, writing, asking questions, praying, and being responsible to this current job and all that that entails.
Speaking of which – I just a stack of tests dropped on my desk that need marking. I’ll stop the rhetoric for now and get to work.
No comments:
Post a Comment