Libertarian Ideal

I found this posting by Dan Rode over at Mens News Daily regarding what a libertarian believes, and quite frankly, I am in complete agreement (although I have never considered myself a conservative).

When you are reading this, think about what role government should play in our lives and what role the government actually plays. Then as you gather with family and friends over the coming holiday week discuss these ideas and see if we cannot raise the intellectual discussion level around the Xmas tree, or at the new years eve party just a bit.

Let me start with a disclaimer before I ouch on a couple of Libertarian values as I see them. I do not represent the Libertarian Party, nor do I necessarily represent all Libertarians. In fact, for most of my adult life, I have identified myself as a conservative. Morally, I remain so.

The Libertarian philosophy is one that most closely follows the original meaning and implementation of the United States Constitution. The founding fathers held an intense distrust of government and its natural appetite for tyranny. The primary purpose of the Constitution was to limit the power of the Federal government, granting only those powers essential to carry out its few, well defined responsibilities. A primary goal of Libertarians is pare the Federal government back until it again fits within the confines of the Constitution.

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now."- South Carolina v. United States (1905)

There are those who put forth the idea that times have changed, people have changed, technology has changed. The architects of the Constitution could not have foreseen these changes and therefore government’s role must evolve to meet these new challenges. These folks espouse the idea of a "living Constitution." I would like to extend this idea to speed limits. If I am late for work, the living speed limit would increase allowing me to drive faster. To be perfectly blunt, this is nonsense. Its only practical application is to allow the Federal government to assume powers denied it in the Constitution.

The founders understood government and society all too well and attempted to design a government that specifically would not evolve easily. In fact, the Constitution was written in plain, clear English so that any citizen might read and understand it. The law set in the Constitution is subject to little interpretation. Evolution comes in the form of Constitutional amendment only. To believe otherwise is to demonstrate an ignorance of our history.

"By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."-James Madison, in Federalist paper No. 10

The founders were just as concerned with the tyranny of factionalism as they were governmental power. Essentially, rights are not subject to either legislation or popular vote. This is one reason they developed a representative republic rather than a more direct form of democracy. The rights of the people should not be subject to the ever changing ebb and flow of public opinion. Libertarians believe that rights are sacrosanct and not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. When Thomas Paine said "Give me liberty or give me death", the liberty he demanded was the free exercise of these natural rights.

On a personal level, I do not feel I have the right to control a person’s actions unless those actions directly interfere with the rights of another. My approval or consent is not required. This demands a level of tolerance that our American society seems to have lost.