Libertarianism, by definition: A political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty.
Personally, I believe this approach should apply to our personal freedoms and economic freedoms, particularly regarding social programs; therefore, I call myself a “social libertarian.” This is not to be confused with social liberalism; I have morals. (I kid, I kid.) I usually do not feel compelled to define this mindset as I have always believed it was self-explanatory. However, after a particular run-in yesterday, I find it prudent to spell it out for anyone who ventures upon this website, whether I direct them to it or not.
Foremost in my mind, unsolicited government intervention should only protect those inalienable rights spelled out in the U.S. Constitution: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, commonly referred to as our Natural Rights, which are endowed by our Creator. Secondly, I am opposed to the establishment of a social welfare state here in the United States, as it is an infringement on our rights, hitting us where it hurts most; also, this unfounded rewards system promotes a backwards set of values in the end.
I find it necessary to point out the libertarian ideals I consider most important, as anyone researching libertarianism will note fringe beliefs in the philosophy that I actually disagree with. For instance, I do not follow any party line when it comes to foreign policy matters. Also, there are left and right wing libertarians who will frequently disagree with each other; this is due to the encompassing doctrine of libertarianism. It is summarily important to note this fact, cite it here, and use it later to specifically demonstrate how a libertarian will think for himself, not relying upon a particular political party or media mogul to make his mind up for him.
I consider this my proudest claim to my own social libertarianism: my mindset will shift only when I decide, as I am ultimately in charge of my own decision making matrix. Today, such mindset shifts are referred to as “flip-flopping;” it could easily be called growth, or evolution, as one becomes wiser with age. Regardless of my mindset and system of ideals, it will continue to be determined by my own thoughts and research.
But I digress; back to my personal philosophy, or what I call “social libertarianism.” When setting policy from a philosophy, it is duly important to balance idealism with realism, and vice versa. When we look at the social welfare programs in place in this country, Social Security quickly comes to mind. Social Security was instituted during FDR’s New Deal, in 1939, because people were seriously starving to death en masse in this country during the Great Depression. After we recovered, this program remained in place because of precedence. Now, as people are living longer, the Social Security system is stressed. Is a federal investment banking system and retirement program part of the “founder’s intent” when drafting the Constitution? Of course not; but do we shut the system down, in its entirety, now? This is where we must balance idealism with realism. I would recommend moving away from the Social Security system altogether; but we can’t do it all in one day. My idealism on the subject conflicts with realism. That does not mean the subject is dead. The ideals behind policy should be pushed, and revealed, as often as they can.
Being an idealist makes you the dreamer, dreaming the impossible dream. Optimistic and visionary, the idealist sees things the way they are and wants them to be better. And he wants that now. The realist sees things from a more pragmatic standpoint, and although he may want to “move the earth” just as much as the idealist, he is more cautionary, more restrained, and slower to move.
To apply only one of these theories when seeking to move the earth would be a mistake. Movement is necessary, but a revolution is not. Striking the proper balance between sweeping legislation and stagnation is the key to our nation’s evolution. Government’s role in the future of this nation is becoming more and more demanding. Determining how we are going to get there from here is the function of the chief legislators and leaders of this nation. More importantly is a clear definition of what “there” means. Where are we trying to go?
This brings nationalized health care to the table for discussion, but I think I will wait to tackle this issue another day. Perhaps after seeing Sicko…
“Those who seek to move the earth must first have a place to stand.”- Archimedes