I've been thinking a lot about the "libertarianism fails in practice/in the real world" claim that I see so often.
I wonder what those who make that claim would see as "not failing".
To me, it doesn't matter what technological wonders you have, or how "safe" you feel, if you don't have full liberty, it's a failure. For this reason, I see the entire history of political government as one monumental failure from beginning to end.
So, the disagreement must center around a difference of opinion as to what "failing" means.
This may also mean we want different things. Or, maybe we want the same things, but we disagree as to how they can be achieved.
I want relative peace. I want everyone's property to be secure. I want everyone to be free from molestation as long as they aren't violating the life, liberty, or property of another individual.
Sure, nothing can guarantee this, but the failure is built right into political government from top to bottom and side to side. That's unacceptable to me.
If the only way I can get what I want is to violate others with taxation, legislation, etc., it's not worth it. It's exactly the same as admitting that if the only way I can have sex is to commit rape, it's not worth it. Statists think violating others is "a necessary evil" if they consider it in any way negative. If it's necessary, it can't be evil, and if it's evil, it can't be necessary. And political government is evil.
No comments:
Post a Comment