In an absolutely absurd argument written in The Christian Monitor, Sheldon Richman attempts to back up Rand Paul's political blunder with Libertarian "thought." Richman writes:
But aren't there boundaries short of someone doing us physical harm that we, as a society, have decided ought to exist? We put limits on non-violent behavior all the time because it's what's best for society as a group (i.e. screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, child labor, slander and libel, etc.).
More importantly, Richman seems to have completely missed the point of a democratic republican form of government in his assessment. "Politicians" aren't "deciding," the people are. We elect politicians to cast votes for us, but when a U.S. Representative casts a vote, he does so under the premise that it's the will of the majority of the people of his district. The people did decide on this, they just decided differently than Richman would have liked. They decided that there are some things we give up as individuals in order to live together in an ordered society. This is something Libertarians are loathe to accept, but also a premise upon which our society is solidly built.
I write as a libertarian, something Rand Paul claims not to be. The essence of the libertarian philosophy is that each person owns him- or herself and whatever belongings he or she honestly acquires. Thus individuals are due freedom of association and, logically, non-association. It also follows that the owner of property should be free to set the rules of use, the only constraint being that the owner may not use aggressive force against others.
Admittedly, that leaves room for loathsome peaceful behavior, such as running a whites-only lunch counter. Who imagined that freedom of association couldn’t have its ugly side?
Nevertheless, individuals are either free to do anything peaceful or they are not. If politicians decide, we have arbitrary government. But government is force, and force is moral only in response to force
But aren't there boundaries short of someone doing us physical harm that we, as a society, have decided ought to exist? We put limits on non-violent behavior all the time because it's what's best for society as a group (i.e. screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, child labor, slander and libel, etc.).
More importantly, Richman seems to have completely missed the point of a democratic republican form of government in his assessment. "Politicians" aren't "deciding," the people are. We elect politicians to cast votes for us, but when a U.S. Representative casts a vote, he does so under the premise that it's the will of the majority of the people of his district. The people did decide on this, they just decided differently than Richman would have liked. They decided that there are some things we give up as individuals in order to live together in an ordered society. This is something Libertarians are loathe to accept, but also a premise upon which our society is solidly built.
No comments:
Post a Comment