Minarchism, not anarchism, is the way
to liberty!
Liberty is one of the foundational beliefs in American political philosophy. It represents freedom in
our choices. A libertarian is someone who thinks liberty is the
highest political virtue.
Lately it seems we have forgotten that
the USA's main political end is liberty. But some see the idea as
more of a danger then a necessity. Hoping to prevent another
terrorist attack, many are willing to give up their liberties in
return for physical safety. What they fail to understand is that
protecting liberty ensures the greatest security. Many have the wrong
idea of safety, relating it to only their physical security, rather
then their potential to express freedom of choice- expressing their
liberty to act. In accordance with this idea of safety, the federal
government should decrease drastically in size becoming a
minarchistic state also known as a night watchman state- with a few
additions pertaining to social services for the under privileged.
Gaining liberty does not mean giving up security.
Many think- as shown by the loss of our
privacy and civil liberties- that the relationship between liberty
and safety is an asymmetrical one. That is, more of one causes less
of the other. If liberty represents our freedom of choice and from
oppression, then security should not interfere with it. Security
means to be free from harm or threat to our potential, not just our
physical bodies.
At this point, it may seem reasonable
to assume that a restriction on liberty ensures some safety by
reducing the potential of an attack. This view of safety is skewed.
If safety means a restriction on personal potential or liberty, then
by that logic, we should all be in prisons, because its only then
that the individual is virtually free from harm; yet, there seems to
be something wrong with living in a prison, even though its safe: our
lack of free choice. True security is the protection from harm to the
potential of the individual. This means a person is most secure when
they are able to exercise their liberty or potential to the fullest.
A security of this kind would focus on threats to the liberty of the
person, rather then the blatant physical safety which leads to
oppression via a police state. The negative about protecting physical
safety over liberty is that it leads to oppression, and people are
not able to thrive. If a society is not able to thrive with their
liberty, then no matter how free from physical harm they may be, the
society is still worse off then if the physical safety of the people
was compromised but liberty was fully protected. This is because that
society would have a tyranny that is much worse then a vague possible
threat. The security state will unavoidably overstep its bounds. As
long as people are able to thrive, there should be not much reason
for people to hurt each other. Most crime is done because the
criminal lacks something which is made up with the crime.
One concern is that some people think a
society which upholds libertarianism would leave people without
social assistance. This concern ignores the two fundamental kinds of
liberty: positive and negative. The one most are familiar with is
negative liberty. This is the liberty or freedom from outside forces
and oppression, as long as the person does not violate other peoples
liberty. The lesser known kind, positive liberty, means the liberty
to have the resources and potential available to fulfill one's
choices. Therefore, people who are in poverty, or have a lack of
education, or are sick, do not have positive liberty. In order to
have positive liberties, these kinds of social ills must be dealt
with so as to allow people to thrive with their freedom. Therefore,
with these kinds of liberty in practice, the concern of people who
are underprivileged can have a chance to better there situation and
thrive with their freedom.
A misconception is that libertarian and
anarchist are synonyms. This is not true; in order to secure these
liberties, there must be some form of collective authority- validated
by voluntary convention- to protect these liberties. Because of this,
a limited form of government is needed. So in contrast to an
anarchist a minarchist is one who believe government should be
restricted to protecting people from aggression, theft, breach of
contract, fraud. The only government organizations would be police
and fire departments, courts, legislative and executive branches. I
would add- because of positive liberty- the services of healthcare,
and education, because if a person is sick or undereducated, they are
able to exercise their liberty to the fullest. These social services
need not come from tax money, but can come about though voluntary
measures like tax credits or encouraged incentives. Hence, a
libertarian society does not have to resort to anarchism, or ignore
the needs of underprivileged people.
Familiarizing oneself with both kinds
of liberty, one can see how the common misconception that liberty
means giving up security or social assistance is a facile one. It
ignores how broad liberty and its philosophy really are. This is
because people see safety as only physical safety. Once the true
definition of safety is learned- that it pertains to the potential to
exercise liberty and not only physical safety- one is ready and able
to understand how upholding and protecting liberty should be restored
to the forefront political concern in the united states; a minarchist
form of federal government would best uphold and protect the liberty
of the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment