Charles Wheelan, statist propagandist, mocked libertarianism. I'm responding on behalf of the ill-used straw man. by Josh Koch
(libertarian)
Friday, June 27, 2008
In his recent piece, "Confessions of a Maturing Libertarian," Charles Wheelan builds a parody of my political philosophy, then beats it to death with an inane argument, all the while establishing how correct it is on today's major issues. If this is a confession made in contrition, it sure sounds funny to this libertarian.
Mr. Wheelan's most compelling argument is his own condescending testimony. It's what any ex-GOP Libertarian like me has heard from acquaintances since joining the LP: But what about stop lights and Osama Bin Laden? What about this and that? It's the typical statist propaganda, but let's play along for our own amusement.
Well, what about them, Mr. Ex-Libertarian? I support stop lights. No, really, I do. What I don't support is the federal funding building them. See, federal funding comes with strings: a 75 mph Speed limit, drinking age of 21, astronomical fuel taxes, exotic fuel blends, and arbitrary emissions equipment on my car, just to name a few federal edicts. Can't we just take up a collection in town instead?
What about Osama? Or, more to the point, what about the government that let 9/11 happen to us? What did happen to Osama, anyway? Has the government, which you now love so much, arrested him? That's what I thought. Are letters of marque and reprisal any worse than invading countries nationally at such an enormous cost of life and treasure?
See, Libertatianism isn't a philosophy of the immature man. It is a mature philosophy in that it recognizes that, while I may think I know better than you do about something, I have no right to force you to do what I want. This is a position of strength, not because it wins debate points, but because it recognizes the errors of history and learns from them. It defies base human nature, and that is what makes it so much more mature and civilized than most of the last 6000 years of human history.
I matured into a libertarian before I ever considered becoming a Libertarian. My youth was misspent protesting abortion clinics, fearing legalized drugs and Satanists, and believing in the Articles of 1990's Republicanism: Newt Gingrich, the Contract with America, and smaller government. While the libertarian movement certainly bears no blame for Newt, the last two articles were pirated materials from libertarian ideals. My maturing process involved finding the roots of my conservative upbringing, and accepting the more consistent philosophy, libertarianism, while shedding the preposterous statist tenets of "conservatism."
We don't oppose stoplights, Mr. Wheelan. We just don't believe that a $9 trillion deficit is a fair price for them. We don't feel like mortgaging our kids for a no-bid contract on a simple electrical assembly. If it is Washington's job to protect my kids, why isn't it protecting them from financial ruin by ceasing and desisting from its wasteful ways?
The answer is sad and simple: They want to give statists like Mr. Wheelan an excuse to support the Nanny State when there is no excuse for such a system. Tell you what, Mr. Wheelan: if we put in the stoplight for you, will you agree to get out of our bedrooms, livingrooms, relationships, homes, schools, churches, towns, communities and lives with your federal mandates and burdens? I think that's a trade any mature libertarian will make gladly.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 10
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Josh Koch only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Josh Koch 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.
I managed to get through Mr. Wheelan's drivel without barfing, and picked up on this:
He makes a moral distinction between smoking pot and robbing a bank to buy pot, and a distinction between drinking and driving while drunk. Why, then, is there no moral distinction between carrying a gun on the street, and committing robbery with that gun? Logical consistency certainly doesn't seem to be his strong point.
Beatnik : Koch "makes a moral distinction between smoking pot and robbing a bank to buy pot, and a distinction between drinking and driving while drunk."
Certainly there is such a distinction. In each case, the first act does not harm or threaten anyone else, while the second does. Therefore a libertarian is OK with the first, while not necessarily with the second.
"Why, then, is there no moral distinction between carrying a gun on the street, and committing robbery with that gun?"
Obviously, there is such a distinction, exactly parallel to the previous ones. But who says there isn't? Not Josh Koch; he's made that very distinction, and argued for it quite forcefully, in the past. Read, for example, his Nolan Chart article, "Just One Gun":
Sorry, you're right; my bad. It came up when I did a search using your name and "guns." (You probably had another article listed in the sidebar.) Anyway, I'll leave the link in as it was a good article, too.
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.
