Topic: Libertarianism
Ron Paul, Stop Signs, Shotguns, And The Jizz-Of-Is... Just what in the Ron Paul Ding Dang Deelio are we growing for? by Scott from Oregon
(Libertarian)
Thursday, June 12, 2008
An idea is often said to be seminal. Metaphors abound around such comparisons. Ideas get "planted". Ideas "germinate". Ideas come to "fruition". Ideas "multiply".
Ideas disseminate, grow, bear fruit, wither and die...
Ideas spawn "movements". People gather collectively as part of a movement, travel along with the movement ( a mental journey, mostly) and then movements "die out".
Strongly favored ideas eventually lose their shiny luster and become fuel for the composts of history. This history and the human vernacular all attest to the cyclic and natural "nature" of ideas. They are seeded. They sprout. They grow, wither, and die.
None of this bodes well for the Ron Paul movement, (or the "freedom" movement, or the "liberty" movement, or the "libertarian" movement). It suggests that what is started, will eventually end. It tells us that our ideas are not irrevocable. They are not eternal. They are not chiseled in granite.
But the good news is that everyone else's ideas also wither and die. There are more dead movements lying rotten in a pile than active ones. And some ideas have had some pretty long lives-- much longer than human generational memory even.
So there is hope.
I mention all this because I recognize a movement when I see one. It's a bit like finding a volunteer plum tree in the garden. It's a surprise and a delight and a curiosity and a curse. Is a volunteer plum tree growing in a garden a good thing or a bad thing? Do you want it there, or should you pluck it?
Thinking of any movement-- like the one Ron Paul started with his run for the presidency-- in the metaphorical realm of plants, planting, seeding, nurturing, growing, living, withering, dying... should make one more careful about what it is that is being grown.
Some things grow like gangbusters but they are still weeds.
Some things require a lot of care but will stand for centuries...
-- I hate stopping at a stop sign. I do. I would much rather just slow down a little, look around, and then gun it safely across. That would be my ideal way to navigate an intersection where I might run into someone. As long as everyone else is as careful as I am and the visibility is perfect for all concerned, this could work. And as long as everybody is flawless in their decision making and no one decides that it is too much of a hassle to slow down, it would be a great way to control traffic at a four-way. And as long as everyone can synchronize their thoughts via telepathy so that the ones who wish to turn don't interrupt the flow of everyone else, it would be a smooth piece of libertarian philosophy in action.
No governmental coercion at all. Free people all behaving freely. Cool.
"That is not Libertarianism!" you may say.
"But I thought... you said... I understood that... Are you sure that's not Libertarianism? "We're against ALL government coercion", someone said. Forcing me to stop at a stop sign is not freedom! It's not liberty! Just as telling me I can't walk into a supermarket with a shotgun, pointing it at the heads of all the kids as they walk by... I'm not hurting any of those kids! I have a second Amendment right! Government should not coerce me in any way! That's what I'm talking about, man!"
-- OK. So I get a little ejaculatory, sometimes. Maybe I take the whole seed thing too far? I write this little piece as I sit here and wonder just WHAT IS the liberty movement? What are its real values? How does it solve everyday problems on an everyday basis? What kind of "freedom" do we want? Who makes that decision? How much theory do we want to put in practice? How much theory do we recognize as "ideals" not suited for the true nature of humanity?
Just what, pray tell, are we growing here?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7 thumbs so far
2008 Scott from Oregon, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, June 12, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, June 12, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Scott from Oregon only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Scott from Oregon is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: C. Al Currier
Date: 2008-06-12 15:55:20
"Just what, pray tell, are we growing here?"
I enjoyed the rEVOLution. If it's dead, then I'll have good memories. If it lives, I plan to enjoy it some more. I laughed and I cried. I feel sorry for those who missed it.
"I hate stopping at a stop sign. I do. I would much rather just slow down a little, look around, and then gun it safely across."
Why not, if there's no other traffic on the road? Nowadays there are surveillance cameras that can catch you and ticket you if you do that; do you think that should be allowed? Or else that you'd have a right to just slow down under those conditions? (If so, then why not under other possible conditions as well?)
That would be my ideal way to navigate an intersection where I might run into someone. As long as everyone else is as careful as I am and the visibility is perfect for all concerned, this could work. And as long as everybody is flawless in their decision making and no one decides that it is too much of a hassle to slow down, it would be a great way to control traffic at a four-way.
I'd see the bigger problem being those who decide that stopping is the better policy, and expect you to stop as well. At a minimum, you should get the word 'Stop' off the signs.
Until then, the safest policy to follow, and the least flawed decision -making policy when there's other traffic on the road, would be to assume that others will follow the rules - and when that doesn't happen, and an accident does, the driver who did not follow the rule was at fault. That's how I'd see any reasonable road owner dealing with it; whether the government owns any roads or other property or not, it does arguably have the obligation to act like a reasonable owner.
"And as long as everyone can synchronize their thoughts via telepathy so that the ones who wish to turn don't interrupt the flow of everyone else, it would be a smooth piece of libertarian philosophy in action."
Not at all; you've simply substituted one rule -- "slow down" for another -- "stop". As long as not everyone followed your rule, there'd still be accidents, and some people would be found at fault and penalized. One's as "libertarian" as the other.
"No governmental coercion at all. Free people all behaving freely. Cool."
Have you ever seen what happens at a traffic light following a power failure? Cops are usually on the intersections quickly, but before they are the drivers usually have a spontaneous traffic flow up and running ("free people behaving freely"). They can do that because they all have a common interest in road safety; and they accomplish it by sticking to the rules they already all know, not changing them around.
Actually, Scott, Sandusky, Ohio, has turned their downtown stoplights to 4-ways, and has essentially stopped enforcing red-light(or stop flasher) running in the downtown....works fine, and moves traffic along much quicker. I roll through the intersection in front of my office everyday-unless someone else is there first. It's not "libertarian" though.
A true "libertarian" road system would have privately funded roads, that would require a contractual agreement for you to drive on-rules, if you will, like very likely stop signs(a liability would be extent on the road company otherwise-libertarian society is quite tortious), and potentially speed limits(speed wears a road, imposing a cost on the ownership-speed might be regulated by the fee you pay to drive on the road)
Oh, and the property rights of a business owner are sacrosanct-no exceptions. They decide the rules of their establishment. if they want naked women with donkeys on Sunday afternoon that's fine-don't like it, don't go.
Even if they dare allow.....smoking.
It's called freedom.
This is the difference between "libertarian" in its modern sense, and Anarchy. Anarchy eliminates the ability to own property, as without a set of laws, property as we know it cannot exist-no matter what Rothbard said about it.
In many ways we have Anarchy now, since property is not really owned by anyone, other than the government deciders, and so, might makes right.
Just because a majority votes on it, does not make it archy, or right, it is still barbarous-force prevailing on the weak.
Your post raises a concern I've had with the "revolution" and that is that there are an awful lot of people who do not have the slightest idea what it is. A problem, that.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Scott from Oregon, all rights reserved.