I’ve been thinking about how to define my personal political beliefs for a very long time now. I’ve been doing a lot of research, a lot of reading, a lot of listening. I’ve been watching roughly five news shows every single day for the past two and a half years, carefully choosing them to hear from each and every side. I still can’t find any term, any name, any label, that really describes what I believe. So on election day 2010, I’m going to try to describe it in my own words the best way that I can.
I’m not a Republican; “compassionate conservatives” seek to control others because they think they’re more righteous than you. I’m not a Democrat; liberal progressives seek control because they think they’re smarter, you’re weaker. And lest we forget, they’re infinitely more tolerant & loving than you are.
To borrow a phrase from Cass Sunstein, you just have too much Homer Simpson in you to know what’s in your own best interest, intellectually, morally, or socially. So it’s up to him, up to the government, up to bureaucrats, to protect us intellectually/spiritually inferior weaklings from our own stupidity, ignorance and bigotry. It’s government’s duty to “nudge” you toward the correct decision. Or better yet, to massage the options available so that each presented choice is the right choice, as determined by them, the self-proclaimed “Choice Architects.”
No, thank you.
What it all boils down to is control, control over you, control over me. No matter what the motives, no matter how golden the intentions, centralized bureaucratic control cannot coexist with liberty. They are oil and water. I don’t want Republicans telling me what I can & cannot do in the bedroom; I don’t want Democrats telling me what I can & cannot do with the money I earn, the food that I choose to eat, or the light bulbs I choose to buy.
How about this instead? A third option, if you will.
As individual Americans, let’s make a pledge between us – I won’t seek to control you, if you don’t seek to control me. If we all looked at politics through that lens, I think the entire debate would radically change. In my opinion, for the better.
It all comes back to what I think should be the full, complete golden rule, in two parts. The first half we all know – do unto others as you would have others do unto you. The second part that I think needs to be added: allow others to do what you wish to do yourself. Translation: don’t seek to control someone else’s life, if you aren’t perfectly fine with someone else controlling yours. That’s the trade off.
Any time you give the government power over any individual’s life, you must accept that government eventually exercising that same power over you. Don’t think you’re special; if that thought ever crosses your mind, you’ve ventured into the realm of the hypocrite. It is inevitable – one of these days, someone you disagree with is going to have that power you so callously granted your government, thinking it would only affect your neighbor, not you. It’s inevitable in a republic that one day the “other side” will have a turn to rule, have a turn at that powerful helm, if a republic is indeed what we still have.
That’s what I believe in politically; I believe in each person’s individual right to determine their own destiny. To reap their own rewards. To suffer the consequences of their own decisions.
To be an adult, with all the rights & responsibilities therein.
One such responsibility is to care for those who absolutely can not care for themselves (not to be confused with those who choose not to.) Never forget, the charity we Americans give of our own free will is at least three times greater than the rest of the world combined. (As recorded in 2008.) No government has the moral authority to dare teach us what it means to be charitable at heart, or force our hand as if we’re the greedy, thoughtless beasts.
Worst of all, if government takes over the responsibility of being charitable, they will rob us of all the blessings involved in giving freely to our brothers & sisters in need. Government will rob the recipient of expressing gratitude & being humbled; government will rob the giver of seeing that gratitude & being humbled. There is a reason charity is so inherent in society; because it reminds us of the best aspects of our humanity. If we hand that responsibility over to the government, we lose that all important reminder of who we are when we’re at our best.
Think of it this way. How often do we walk past a pothole and think, “Why hasn’t someone done something about that?” How often do we walk past a homeless person and think, “Why hasn’t someone provided a homeless shelter?”
Why are we relying on a nameless, faceless someone?
Because our government is absolving us of our human instinct to care. We paid our taxes, that was enough. Now we can sit back and complain.
We’ve already seen it happen, so why do we perpetuate it? Why do we hand more and more of our charitable opportunities to that same nameless, faceless someone who hasn’t filled the potholes and hasn’t housed all the homeless? Private charities are so much more efficient than any government program, and yet we keep making it harder and harder for them to operate, because we let government get bigger and bigger. It makes no sense. Name me a single city or state with a large, controlling government that has actually proven to be efficient. While you waste your time looking for a single positive example of government efficiency, I can supply you with example after example – Cleveland, Detroit, hell, the entire state of California.
Government is robbing us of the need to care for others, and in so doing, robbing us of the inherent blessings.
In the end, though, even this comes back to control. It always does. Don’t rob collective Peter to pay collective Paul, even if Paul is in sincere need. Don’t control me, don’t force me to give to your pet project. Rather, let me give of my own free will. Because I will, when I’m given the opportunity to choose. Respect me enough as a human being to know that my humanity is still intact, and I will respect you in turn.
When you strip away the slogans, the pomp & circumstance, when you remove all the trappings of good intentions, that’s all government is: control. Its very nature is force.
Each of us when we reach our teenage years are blessed with the undeniable impulse for freedom, for independence. I believe there’s a reason for that, a reason greater than just to get us out from under our parents’ roof. It’s to teach us the importance of determining the course of our own lives. As teenagers we transition from the child in the backseat to the driver behind the wheel.
Take that transition to its full logical conclusion, apply it throughout your life. Don’t choose to be forever the child in the backseat of life, allowing your government to be the parent who drives the car, who determines your ultimate destination. Drive your own car. Make your own choices.
And let me make mine.
Have you considered the Libertarians? They seem to be about as closely aligned to your statement as any organized party could be. Even if you’re not into the Libertarian party, you would probably find a lot in common with libertarians in general.
I am not a Libertarian nor a libertarian, though I have some political sympathy for their principles. I just don’t think libertarianism, at least in its pure form, is a viable form of government.
I agree with the other poster. You sound like you have libertarian tendencies, quite like myself. Yay for personal rights!
Hey, Levi!! I haven’t heard from you in ages! How’ve you been? Yeah, you and Sara are right, I think I do have libertarian leanings. In fact, I think if more Americans understood the roots of libertarianism, meaning classical liberalism, they’ll realize – as I did – that what they’re referring to as “moderate” is really leaning toward libertarianism.
But I’m hesitant to adopt that label outright, because like with most organized politics, I think it tends to get taken to extremes. I tend to shy away from that. And like you said, thus the Libertarian model becomes less than viable.
So I think the closest label I’ve found thus far is what I refer to as “classical liberal in the vein of Bastiat & Locke.” That make any sense?
Please excuse any typos – typin it out fast on my iPhone. Thanks for the comments thus far! Nice to meet you, Sara, and fantastic to hear from you again, Levi! It’d be great to catch up.
I just had a thought – is that Sara my darling Sara that went and moved away with her darling family?! Or a new Sara that might be darling too? 🙂
Hello,
I am so thankful for your blog!
Check out this clip:
http://sourceflix.com/the-bible-vs-the-book-of-mormon/
– Matthew
Hey girl, I haven’t heard from you in a while, did you get my email?