It is becoming apparent that my eager acceptance of “libertarianism” was reckless. Most of us have said or thought, “If I had only known then what I know now.” When we undertake something new – not knowing what we don’t know – enthusiasm often overcomes obstacles. “Wet behind the ears” can be a benefit. Or can lead to great disappointment . . . as I am experiencing as I am discovering the Great Divide between “libertarians”. When I discovered the liberty philosophy some years ago, it seemed to me that if we were all in agreement on some foundational principles – that we can do as we please so long as we are not hurting others or taking their stuff – then that would lead us to positions and actions that might move us in the direction of a libertarian, free society. Stupid me. Because libertarians cannot seem to agree on much of anything. Except their vision of the ideal. There are the quarrels about military interventions; open borders; and anarchy, for example. But most perilous is the great divide between those who would take practical steps toward the goal and others who refuse to take any position or action short of utopia . . . they want a free society, all or nothing. Is that not a bit like preaching about heaven while not believing in God? I have posed a question to several of my libertarian mentors; I call it the Libertarian Puzzle. I said, “I just cannot comprehend how you propose to get to, or establish, the libertarian society. I completely agree with the goal and the ideal. But we are obviously a long way from it in America today; the statists ARE in charge. Yes, we have a Right to be free – now – but we are not. So is it revolution? Bankruptcy? Moving somewhere else? No one yet has answered the question. In fact, it appears that most are unwilling to even consider practical steps. Or have given up entirely. One said that we (humans) are hard-wired against freedom. Another refuses to support anything that is not “pure” even if it is a marked improvement over the status quo, even if it moves us in the right direction. Still others feel bad for “poor Ron Paul” because he believes that education can help folks learn and thus effect change. So now we have the “pure” libertarians (and the unpure?). We have “thin” libertarians, and “thick” (thick-headed?). As I understand them: “pure” or “thin” libertarians will not support repealing taxes on income, for example, and replacing them with a consumption tax because they do not believe in any taxes at all. Nor will they support legalizing marijuana because all drugs should be legal. Or because they might be taxed. Many don’t vote because they do not believe in the state. My belief is that if the libertarians and the fiscal conservatives and the social liberals do not identify the principles that they have in common – rather than fight over their differences – and take small practical steps that would change our country’s direction, then we truly are doomed. Fascism is inevitable. And if that is the case, why continue to expend time and effort pontificating about some unachievable utopia? Are we condemned to live our lives vicariously through the novels of Ayn Rand and the songs of John Lennon? If the libertarians do not believe in supporting policies or taking actions that could restore the Idea of America, and possibly keep the American Experiment alive, then who will? And if not America, where? The political game is to keep the populace divided, to threaten them with hobgoblins, and to drive wedges between groups. The libertarians choose to drive wedges between themselves, and seem delight in doing so. The Great Libertarian Divide is a microcosm of the American electorate. Thus the state wins. Am I wrong? Or have most libertarians truly conceded that America’s destiny – and likely the fate of the world – is authoritarianism? So practical small steps are, in fact, impractical?
