Libertarian--Just Another Word for Selfish!

By Dennis McClatchey

If you search the Internet in an effort to discover the core principles of what it means to be a Libertarian, you are apt to find the following as a representative sample.

The Libertarian Party web sit. “maximum freedom-limited government.”

The Libertarianism web site. “Libertarians strive for a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.”

Boy, that sounds great, doesn’t it. I mean who can fault the pursuit of freedom and liberty. After all, it’s the American way. Sounds simple, right? Yes, and that’s exactly the problem. Because simple it’s not.

First, this philosophy is founded on the notion that the larger government becomes, the less freedom each of us enjoys. That certainly can be true for some forms of government. But what if the government is established to protect the liberty and freedom of all Americans? I would argue that the smaller, and therefore weaker, a government becomes, the less able it is to protect, maintain, and ensure our individual freedoms and liberties.

But let’s get to what is really at the heart of what it means to be a Libertarian by examining some motives and positions of a few of its stalwarts.

Tom Delay, the former U.S. House Majority Whip, is legendary for many things. But of interest here is what motivated him and drove him into politics in the first place. As well as being known as the “hammer” through his rough and tough dealings as Whip, he was first known as “the Exterminator.” You see, Tom owned a Texas pest control business. And he didn’t cotton to the government telling him what poisons he could and could not use.

So for Tom, the dilemma of choosing between what’s best for the common good and what was best for him, Tom chose, me, me, me. And he did so in the name of liberty.

Rand Paul, freshman Senator from Kentucky and a Tea Party darling, as well as avid Libertarian was interviewed by Rachael Maddow on MSNBC where he not only criticized parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he said if he had been in the Congress at the time he would have worked to defeat it as it was written.

In explaining his position he made reference to laws restricting people from entering certain establishments carrying concealed weapons. His logic went like this. If a business owner can be allowed to prevent a gun carrying customer into his establishment, then he should be allowed to prevent anyone from entering for any reason, including race.

Of course the obvious problem with this argument is, the gun owner can still enter the establishment if he leaves his gun at home. It is a bit more tricky for one to leave ones ethnicity at home. The comparison does not present equivalent circumstances.

For Senator Paul the liberty dilemma is seen thusly. Liberty of the business owner to restrict service for any reason including race versus the liberty of an American to access services regardless of race. The answer: the business owner’s liberty trumps the individual’s liberty.

His views are not that surprising considering the views of his father, Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas, professed Libertarian, and perennial Presidential candidate.

On the 40^th anniversary of passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Rep. Paul rose before the chamber to declare that the Act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Rather, he proclaimed that it increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

To me this comment is most revealing as to the true nature of the Libertarian character. Yes, federal integration laws produced increased tension as minorities began exercising the freedoms promised them by the constitution because many white segregationist wanted Jim Crow laws to remain. This resulted in tension. Tension bad.

So, for Rep. Paul his liberty dilemma is seen thusly. The freedom of all Americans regardless of race to exercise the freedoms guaranteed under the constitution versus the freedom of white racists to discriminate against these very Americans thereby decreasing tension. For Rep. Paul the call goes with the racist. But, only as a matter of principle you understand. You see, he personally doesn’t care for racists.

Rep. Paul has some problems even with the core of the Libertarian principle. You see, Paul is a pro lifer. That’s fine. He is entitled to oppose abortion and considering his previous career as an obgyn physician, it is an understandable position.

But, to favor restrictions in a woman’s right to choose her health care reproduction decisions is not a Libertarian position. Oh, I know his reasoning. He believes life begins at conception. So, for him it is a moral issue. But, for many women, the right to make these decisions is a moral issue, as well. So, for Paul, it’s a question of whose morals we choose. His answer: mine, mine, mine.

Apparently Rep. Paul is opposed to the government interfering in our personal lives except in those instances where he feels the government should interfere in our personal lives. You call that being principled?

The problem is, it is not liberty these people are promoting. It is only their liberty on their terms when it conforms to their moral beliefs that defines their position.

And that is selfish. And, that is not the American way!