What is a Libertarian?

By -  Rex Ballard

statism vs. libertarianism model

All labels, when applied to people, points of view or ideology are dangerous because they imply a level of binary discipline. You either "are" or you "aren’t". Early in my life, as I became more aware of the world around me and the fact that the world didn’t actually revolve around me, I decided to become more politically active and I would actually register to vote. So, of course the first thing you are confronted with is to declare your affiliation. When I asked the person helping me fill out the voter registration card what it meant to be a "republican" or a "democrat" (the "big two") I didn’t feel like I really fit into either of those camps – there were things he described a democrat as that I would think…"yeah that’s me", but there were also things about a republican that I would also think…"yeah, that’s me". So with this dilemma, I focused on the other choices, which at that time were "libertarian", or "unaffiliated". Well, unaffiliated didn’t seem like a real choice so through this crude process of elimination I decided I was a Libertarian – even though I didn’t actually know what a Libertarian was, I simply assumed it applied to someone like me who could see virtue in aspects of the democrat and republican dogma of the time.

I was a child of the 70’s. Too young to actually be sucked into the Vietnam War but old enough to know a lot of people who were. Also, old enough to have strong opinions about just how little was accomplished as a result of that war and what a high price was paid in terms of; a) human and financial sacrifice, b) public resentment both for and against the war and c) the huge rift that was created in our political thinking. I was personally conflicted in that I was and am a firm believer that capitalism and democracy, in spite of their inherent flaws are a better alternative to other forms of government as they contribute to an individual’s right and ability to pursue their own personal liberty, which is a foundational belief of libertarian political philosophy. So, this early thinking framed my belief of what it meant to be a "Libertarian".

However, after doing a bit more research and by listening to people of the time who tried to define what a Libertarian was, I began to have serious doubts that I really fit into this party affiliation. Historically, libertarians believe that individuals have a right to exercise their individual freedom and to freely associate. The underlying philosophy goes on to suggest that there should be little or no role for Government. These two key tenets of liberalism have made for some strange bedfellows. So, I find it interesting that liberalism, as the underlying tenet of Libertarian politics, has been co-opted by people on both ends of the political spectrum. In the 60’s, radical groups who were opposed to the Vietnam War advocated anarchy under a "Libertarian" call. At the same time, there were figures such as Barry Goldwater on the extreme right who espoused small Government under a "Libertarian" mantle.

Today, John Stossel is a public personality who defines himself as Libertarian and does a good job of articulating his view of what it means. John Stossel, currently has a regular program on Fox Business Channel and is frequently a contributor on other Fox News programs. Previously, John Stossel had a popular segment that often appeared on ABC’s 20/20. Stossel, chooses to emphasize individual freedom and "the free market" as an alternative to outright anarchy. However, his views on free market do suggest a much smaller role for Government. As an example he has suggested that the FDA as an agency contributes as much if not more so to the danger of the public as it does to its safety. He cites such examples as the delays in releasing drugs to the US market when many of these drugs are widely distributed and used in other countries and how the massive bureaucracy of the FDA contributes directly to the high cost of drugs in the U.S. He has also suggested that the FDA’s attempt to ban electronic cigarettes, while not banning cigarettes, suggest that they play a role in protecting an industry that kills thousands of people every year. Alternatively, Stossel suggests that the "free market" can sort this all out. If people want to kill themselves by smoking cigarettes, real or electronic – it’s their right to do so. Furthermore, if a company sells a drug that is dangerous, the legal system will penalize them for doing so.

So, once again I can see merit to his viewpoint on a number of levels, but I’m not sure I’m ready to completely eliminate the FDA and rely on the free market to decide what is and isn’t safe. If I’m the poor schmuck who dies after taking an untested medication it gives me little comfort to know that my survivors will be able to sue on my behalf. But at the same time, he has a legitimate point; we may be jeopardizing lives in attempt to guarantee the public’s safety. Furthermore, we see that the safety net has a lot of holes in it given the number of class action law suits drug developers face. All of which contribute to the high cost of medicine.

So, what is a Libertarian? As with all labels the definition depends on the point of view of the beholder. Its two most basic principles are a person’s right to exercise their individual liberty and a world with very limited government intervention.

A Modest Proposal

By -  Judy Sherrard

For decades, our nation has fought bitterly over whether abortion should be illegal or criminalized. Certain politicians now are actually wringing their hands over the ethics of contraception. Rather than expect people to go against human nature and only copulate when they want children, I propose a better solution. And my antidote to all of these problems is probably already within our reach technologically.

Why not infuse the public water supply with birth control? Surely, if we put our best minds on it, we could come up with a side-effect-free formulation that rendered the population sterile unless they took an antidote. In my plan, this antidote (also side-effect-free) would cost nothing and be available in every store in the country, sitting in little baskets next to cash registers. Want a baby? Grab a handful of the blister-packed pills the next time you’re getting a Starbucks or a gallon of milk.

The catch is that the antidote would have to be taken much the same way as traditional birth control pills are now: three weeks on the pill, one week off. And the other catch, and this is a big one, both male and female have to take the antidote. After six months of the antidote, your fertility returns to normal and you can proceed with the baby-making. All this program demands is a bit of planning and engineering.

Put my plan into effect and no one is denied the right to have children except those who are unable to follow the antidote regime and I’d argue that if you are intellectually unable to do that, you probably are not mentally ready to handle a baby. Is your life too disorganized to accommodate the antidote? Then you’re probably too disorganized to have a baby right now.

I confess that the idea of engineering the antidote to be a bit challenging occurred to me after listening to teen-agers discuss how to correctly take the birth control pill and under what circumstances people got pregnant. Their mind-boggling combination of ignorance and inexperience made my ears spin on my skull. I never want these kids to be entrusted with little baby versions of themselves until they mature about 20 more years. But I digress….

Think about all of the problems this system would solve. There would be no more unwanted children. Teen-aged pregnancies would drop to almost nil, which means tens of thousands of children would not be added to the public support rolls. A teen-ager whose life probably would grind to a miserable halt if she got pregnant would at least have a shot at a better life than the one she’d have if she had a baby, i.e., working at multiple minimum-wage jobs and collecting food stamps.

About fourteen bazillion dollars would also be saved that are now poured into saving and repairing babies born to drug-addled mothers. Also think of the relief this would bring to the people who might otherwise be saddled with the catastrophe of having to raise the grandchildren produced and abandoned by their drug-addicted children.

　
One of the best features of my system is that it shuts up, totally and forever, the yodeling cacophony that surrounds abortion. No one ever needs an abortion in the new world, except in medical emergencies. Everyone in the new world is pregnant because they really, really, really want a baby. And they prove that commitment by having six months to think it over carefully while they take the antidote.

I’m a miserly, pragmatic person and I love the idea of saving baskets of money, as well as saving children from being born into situations where they’re doomed before they can even get both feet out of the womb. I also love the idea of sparing teen-agers the tragedy of seeing their lives tank after one impulsive, teen-ager-ly act, i.e., sex resulting in an unplanned pregnancy. There is a lot of misery spinning around - and a lot of money burned to ameliorate that misery - which is directly attributable to unplanned, unwanted children. If turning the tables on conception, so that you have to take pills to get pregnant rather than the other way around, alleviates all of these problems, why not give it a try?