anonymous is my new best friend!!! i am soooo happy to have received my first actual comment!! i think i'll specifically ask for feedback more often!
in this vein, please write me with all your criticisms of the following critique on the libertarian ideology.... :)
i just got home from a week-long conference held by the Institute for Humane Studies entitled "the Foundations of Liberty." Their objective was to inform us of (and perhaps convert us to) the doctrines of Libertarianism. The Libertarian party is a 'third party' that believes in limited government whose sole purpose is to protect civil liberties, private property, and the rein of the free market.
Although I have not as yet sworn my allegiance to the libertarian ways, the week was in no way a waste. I met some amazing people from all over the world: (in alphabetical order) argentina, azerbaijan, bulgaria, croatia, india, modlova, romania, russia, ukraine, yugoslavia, to name a few of the countries represented.
it was a great change of pace as compared to my month-long vacation in the paradise also know as trinidad. my brain was put to work for the first time since finals. the lectures refreshed my american history, microeconomics, moral philosophy and even french and english literature.
i was reminded of all the praise economists give to the powers of the free market... how in some mysterious way, the market will make everything all right. for instance, outsourcing a nike factory to india will provide cheaper shoes for everyone. it may seem counterintuitive at first glance, but on paper and in economic graphs, these calculations actually add up and make sense.
however, in practice, i believe the libertarian model would rely too heavily upon individuals' generosity to help the plight of the impoverished, hungry, sick and helpless. the government would not provide a social safety net, eliminating all programs designed to protect the poor (and with the same token, the rich that corrupt govt officials as well).
i just can't accept the fact that it's ok to have a society where the super super rich are getting richer off the not-as-poor-as-they'd-be-without-this-sweatshop-job poor.
the argument is that people would not choose city life of over-work, under pay, cramped quarters and pollution, for $1/day if they had a better alternative. is it possible, though, that people have abandoned simple and traditional ways of life all for a pipe dream? maybe leaving a self-sufficient farm is desireable because of imagined fortunes awaiting in the city. images, attainable or not, i'd have to blame on the cultural aspect of globalization.
along with foreign industries come foreign ideals of mcdonald's hamburgers, big luxury cars, swimming pools, and rappers' bling. is it elitist to assume that the rest of the world shouldn't have big dreams too? yet, there may be some unintended consequences of exporting the american (or free market) dream. what if images of a better life are in reality unattainable in the place you live. e.g. if you happened to be an average teen male living in central africa? when faced with the harsh realities of poverty, disease, warfare, a corrupt government, and no opportunities, a false sense of hope can turn into utter despair and disillusionment --- perfect fuel off of which dictators and warlords feed.
on a less extreme level, to encourage a completely free market naturally leads to a culture of consumerism. if the proverbial pie gets larger the more we buy, then buying becomes a neccessity, even an act of patriotism. it's a cutlure that encourages mr. and ms. middle class to get to the mall every payday, to help get the economy pumpin, even (especially?) if it puts them in debt.
even if everyone has more money in the long run, i'm not convinced that working one's life away to gain a few more pennies is the ideal society we should be aiming for. as the altermondialistes or anti-wto folks would say, a better world is possible!
finally, there is a fundamental contradiction in the libertarian ideology that becomes evident when one investigates the party's stance on foreign policy. what happens when the head of a state is an evil dictator, who restricts people's liberties, and (perhaps more importantly to the real world,) refuses to open its markets to the rest of the world. can the libertarian government intervene on behalf of those oppressed people? the moral philosopher says yes. we are morally justified in untying the prisoner, or cutting the head off of the dictator.
what happens, though, if those people feel they have 'freely chosen' to give up certain liberties to their government? after all, according to rousseau, we have all signed the imaginary social contract with the powers that be.
now, instead of an evil dictator, let's imagine that state only refuses to open its markets to the rest of the world. the state isn't massacring its people or even restricting liberties; it merely protects its native industries from the unfeeling storm of the free market. in this case, does our libertarian government have the right or obligation to intervene? to overthrow this protectionist government?
would we not be restricting the rights of these people to freely choose their own leader?
where can we draw the line between justified interventions and unjustified? will it depend on the number of casualties the libertarian government pays to 'liberate' another country?
what about during the cold war when several countries democratically voted in communist governments? was the US justified in overthrowing them and installing pro-western leadership? for the sake of argument, let's pretend these new puppet governments actually did fulfill the duties of protecting the people's civil liberties. is it ok to tell the rest of the world that 'we' know what's best for them?
there is a very fine line between liberation and imperialism.
[now you make your comments! :) ]
