Yesterday, I did a stupid. I got into a political argument with a Libertarian.
Now, normally I like political discussions. You go back and forth. You present facts and try and convince other people. But there are certain mindsets where the effort involved sometimes just isn’t worth it. Let me elaborate (you knew I would anyway, didn’t you).
I’ll admit I have a mindset that could be called “Democratic”. I believe that government can help people, and occasionally gets it right. I believe that certain programs can be run more efficiently at a government scale, simply due to the elimination of redundant overhead (I do recognize that government overhead is greater than private industry overhead, but I don’t think it is equal to multiple redundancies). For example, government has the responsibility to provide common defense, ensure smooth interstate commerce, and improve the general welfare of the governed. That latter category is broad, and covers the gamut from FEMA to Social Security to Medicare to Public Education to Postal Services … and even to ensuring health coverage. We can argue the specifics of how this is done, but we need to agree on the role — that government needs to provide these services.
I also believe that government has a role in reining back some of the excesses of human nature, in other words, greed. I love to quote Alton Brown on this:
Here’s what it comes down to kids. Ronald McDonald doesn’t give a damn about you. Neither does that little minx Wendy or any of the other icons of drivethroughdom. And you know what, they’re not supposed to. They’re businesses doing what businesses do. They don’t love you. They are not going to laugh with you on your birthdays, or hold you when you’re sick and sad. They won’t be with you when you graduate, when your children are born or when you die. You will be with you and your family and friends will be with you. And, if you’re any kind of human being, you will be there for them. And you know what, you and your family and friends are supposed to provide you with nourishment too. That’s right folks, feeding someone is an act of caring. We will always be fed best by those that care, be it ourselves or the aforementioned friends and family.
We are fat and sick and dying because we have handed a basic, fundamental and intimate function of life over to corporations. We choose to value our nourishment so little that we entrust it to strangers. We hand our lives over to big companies and then drag them to court when the deal goes bad. This is insanity.
In short, business are in business to make money. They’ll stuff the sausage with sawdust and floor sweepings if they can. They’ll skimp on maintenance. They’ll create unstable and risky financial instruments. They will do what they need to do to make profits, pay their bonuses, and provide dividends to shareholders. That’s what the shareholders want. I believe that government has the responsibility to rein this in: to protect the welfare of the governed. Thus I believe in appropriate regulation: pure food and drug laws, labor laws, health and safety laws, financial regulation, insurance industry regulation. I don’t believe in deregulation, I believe in appropriate regulation. This is one area where I part company with conservatives.*
However, there are areas I believe government doesn’t belong — in the areas that don’t promote the general welfare. The government has no business enforcing one religion’s moral code on another, for example. This is where I part company with the neo-cons.
Do I believe there are problems in government? Sure. Do I believe there are excesses? Sure. But it is our responsibility as the governed to elect representatives that will work to correct the problem, and to remove from office those whom we believe exacerbate the problem.
Now, the above is my view. I’m perfectly willing to argue specifics of legislation. I’m perfectly willing to judge candidates individually to see if they agree with my positions, irrespective of their stated party affiliation.
But arguing with a Libertarian? I should know better.
In general, the Libertarian view seems to be a belief that government can never get it right: get the government involved, and they will screw it up. Therefore, government’s role should be as limited as possible. No expansive programs. Just some very limited roles, and let private industry do the rest.
Although I can recognize such a view for what it is, arguing with it is pointless. Just as you can’t change someone’s ethics (something I learned many years ago at SDC — you can’t teach ethics, you can teach the law), you can’t change someone’s underlying political philosophy. The “government can do good” philosophy cannot find a middle ground with the “limited government” philosophy on any government initiative, because the “limited government” approach simply cannot conceive of a government involvement that will work. I can look at government endeavors and see the successes; they look and they only see the failures. Different philosophies.
And so, when I get into a political discussion with a Libertarian, it starts out reasonable: I point out some of their misunderstandings on the issue, and they point out some of mine. We learn. But it rapidly gets to the point where their argument is: government is involved, therefore it will fail and why do it. I can’t argue them out of that view, anymore than I could argue a Christian away from their belief in Jesus. Fundamental beliefs are axiomatic — they are taken as given and not easily changed. Just as they can’t convince me by listing cases where government has failed, for I’ll invariably be able to things I call successes, or areas where things have improved.
I will, however, note one positive thing from the argument, and this is something we far to often forget. We are taking the time for this argument not for the purposes of promoting our political party and stymying the other, but because we care for our country and want the best for it. Our definition of “best” may differ, but our purposes are the same. I often wonder if that is true for the political folks in congress: how many of them are actually trying to find the middle ground, and how many of them are just objecting to legislation because it was initiated by the other party, and (heaven forfend) we cannot give them a victory.
* I’ll note there are other areas I part company with some of what appear to be Republican ideas — namely, the notion that I worked hard to get mine, and I don’t want to share it with you. This comes across in the notions: “Why should I pay for your illness?”, “Why should I pay to educate your child?”, “Why should I pay when you’re out of a job?”. That just goes against my moral Hillel compass, e.g., “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I?”.
