The Libertarian values of personal liberty, small government and business autonomy are obviously, on the surface, attractive. Yet they are, of course, vague and leave many questions to be answered. As such one is left with the perception that the general problem is one of quantification: more liberty, less government and more autonomy for business. The qualitative questions, however, are what should interest us.
To what extent does the primacy of personal liberty take into account or presuppose the social being which determines the kind of individual personal liberty we will enact? After all we are "social individuals" before we are "individuals." Are Libertarians flip-flopping in reaction to the social engineering/social welfare model that has dominated American politics? That is, are they creating the exact opposite problem: further atomization and an alienated mass of individuals without individuality yet paraded shamelessly in the name of individual liberty? When, in other words, does individual liberty become socially irresponsible opportunism and license? Given that we now live in a mass culture that seriously threatens family and community, is the emphasis on personal liberty beside the point? The point being that continuing emphasis on the primacy and priority of the "individual" and personal freedom overlooks the continuing disintegration of social and cultural identity, belonging and purposefulness as and in community.
Moreover, rather than smaller government, possibly we should be talking about authentically representative government, and what kind of public openness, commonality of values and shared interests would assure such representation. Obviously, great leaders for the Republic do not seem to be able to rise to the top. When the people at the grass roots level are systematically excluded from real, rational democratic discourse not only at the national but especially at the local level, the moneyed interest blocs choose who will lead “us”, not the people. The likes of unabashed offering of Dan Quayle and George W. Bush as great leaders does not inspire my trust in the Republican system of government nor my faith that the best leaders will rise to the top. Such leaders as we have seen recently are dupes, mouthpieces, empty vessels for extra-political ideologists and business lobbies such as the neo-cons and Halliburton. When a democracy is gounded in mass alienation and media-constituted culture, we have neither democracy nor authentic representation let alone the kind of process in which intelligent, courageous and authentically representative leadership can emerge.
Lastly, the market is not an invisible magic wand that guarantees good and prosperous business. The “business model” that I keep hearing about is possibly not even good for business. At best, the “business model,” whatever it really is, seems to be good for business but not necessarily for people. The history of the labor movement, the practice of planned obsolescence and the militarization of industry bring the value of the “business model” into serious question. Business practice and creativity does need freedom but business itself should not become the cart that leads the horse.
Whether another party with highly questionable precepts will serve Niagara County well I don’t know. Nevertheless, it seems that we need to think beyond the party model of political organization and action and imagine what politics would be like if the community were the operating agent of poltical action. The party system will likely continue to facilitate business and ideological interests that are socially and culturally destructive and divisive. It will probably continue to mimic the model of national politics, a practice that fails to express and explore the interests of people in community. It will most likely further stimulate a discourse about pseudo-issues and more distractive talk about the bad behavior of candidates, their strategies, performance and prospects. It will lead us further into the darkness of the proceduralist democracy that we now have. We need a constitutive democracy which does not presuppose that all is well at the social, cultural and community level of American life. Why not work at building a community and region as opposed to another party that will probably play into the perversions of power politics, class elitism, and the bureaucratic centralism which is the real poltical problem in America and in New York and in Niagara County.
I admire your ability to take libertarian ideas seriously; I have had far too many BB arguments and flame wars with libertarians who think Ayn Rand had them in mind when writing The Fountainhead to believe that anyone professing such an ideology is anything more than a huckster, at best. The fact that the folks behind the Niagara LB party are a radio talk show host and an erstwhile op-ed columnist/provocateur (to whose site you have a link) further strengthens this conviction--truly committed to change they may be, but truly committed to show business they are as well.
ReplyDeleteI have been wondering about the ubiquity of libertarians on internet message boards; do you think there is something about the way internet discourse operates that encourages libertarian sentiment?
If in fact it is the case that Libertarians tend to congregate in Web forums I would venture to speculate that the socially amorphous and anonymous nature of the Web in fact reflects or parallels the same indifference to social form or context within which they feel comfortable in the real world. Libertarians seem to ignore the social question as historically and logically prior to the sanctification of the “freedom” of the “individual.” An ideology that treats the interests and liberty of the asocial individual as primary and prior to the interests of community can’t act with the interests and especially the integrity of the community in mind. Community would seem to be the result of the cultural and political fallout which is the consequence of the action of socially dissociated free individuals. The abundance of the individual personality and his/her capacity to act socially may be the measure of the success of community but is not the sufficient prior constitutive factor in constituting that community.
ReplyDeleteSee the problem with your interpretation Larry is that we are not talking specifically about the community that we enshrine today nor are we speaking of the speculative community in which you hope to force me by way of traditionally unconstitutional vote in the future.
ReplyDeleteWe are speaking of a society beyond just empirical as it has been attempted once with success as opposed to the community concept in which you seem to echo as many have echoed with abject failure.
The question quite simply is just whether you should have the right to force me by way of law which of course is enforced by governmental force with weapons and imprisonment or should I allowed to choose a voluntary donation and my decision as whethen I would like to contribute.
What is the difference between myself working a specific number of hours before I am actually earning money and slavery? You cannot answer from a progressive perspective that does not necessarily admit to forced labor as it is impossible.