The Truth @ The Spin Factor

The need for consequentialist libertarianism

The recent defection by Arlen Specter from the Republican Party along with John McCain’s embarrassing loss in 2008 is a strong indication that the Republican Party which was hijacked by Neoconservative terrorists for two presidential terms, is now losing steam.

Obama has surprised libertarians by moving in the opposite direction: no micromanagement or meddling in foreign affairs, but instead, a more open policy of constructive dialogue, and new beginnings.

We have not heard from Iraq recently. Are efforts to end the “War on Terror” underway? In only 100 days, we cannot form a strong and reasonable opinion of Barack Obama on this issue; but in the meantime, there are other pressing issues such as whether there needs to be government action on the swine flu or on the economy.

The fear of trivially being labeled a terrorist during George Bush’s miserable excuse for a presidency, for opposing neoconservative ideas such as preemptive wars, which was analogous to 1950’s McCarthyism, can be let go. I don’t think Obama’s administration intends to punish you for your thoughts of dissent.

It’s relatively clear that the 9/11 “Truther” Movement which has also died down, was a side effect or response to the paranoia inspired by neoconservative ideas. Along those lines, there is no North American Union underway, no Amero.

Bush was not reelected to office for a third time.

These ideas are what killed Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign, along with his refusal to explain possibly racist newsletters published under his name. Ultimately, Ron Paul’s campaign did resort to fear, as did the other presidential campaigns.

Is it unreasonable to see a true libertarian government gain traction? Ron Paul flip-flopped on immigration (or at least this is what his last presidential campaign led us to believe), his views on abortion and evolution are questionable from a scientific point of view, and his associations with conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones undermined his credibility.

Nevertheless, there was room in Ron Paul’s campaign for libertarianism: a more relaxed and open relationship with Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran, subject not to the government’s whim, but to the will of U.S. citizens to associate and trade with the rest of the world.

Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy were so popular that members of the U.S. Military appeared to favor Ron Paul over now-President Barack Obama, and Senator John McCain; counter-intuitively so.

After 8 years of neoconservatism, Obama’s presence is overwhelmingly fresh and comforting, but his choice of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State is questionable, no least because she seems to favor neoconservative ideals (protect Israel at all costs from the “evil” Iran).

I think that real libertarianism is held-back by absolutist ideals. There is a widely-held stereotype of libertarianism as gun-toting, racist individuals, whereas libertarianism can be as wide as to extend slightly into both Democratic and Republican camps.

Nevertheless, libertarianism itself has problems. From outdated Austrian-economics (at one extreme of the spectrum) to deontological justifications. In my view, no political perspective can be justified without consequentialism, by definition.

Deontological libertarianism suffers from simple rules of thumb that are demonstrably wrong. That is, it is not always right to let people wield weapons. At some point personal liberty itself can be threatened by the property we all share: the air, water, our ever-decreasing room for building houses. The actions of others do not occur in a vacuum, and although we can and probably ought to curve the negative effects we have on others, deontological libertarianism does not and cannot arrive at logical or balanced solutions to our problems.

Consequentialist libertarianism, on the other hand, does not adhere to or rely on strong knee-jerk reactions. It requires real thought, not the assumption that something is always right, but analyzing the context of the situation. For Hillary Clinton, Israel will always have a right to exist and Iran will always be evil. Perhaps there was a semblance of thought at some point when she developed that stance. In contrast, a deontological libertarian will always say it is wrong to interfere with Israel and Iran; A consequentialist libertarian may hold the view that it is unfair to interfere in Israel and Iran’s affairs, but more importantly, a consequentialist libertarian will examine the consequences of both action and inaction, and choose a solution which minimizes negative consequences, maximizes positive consequences, and lets people make their own decisions as much as possible.

If Iran and Israel want interference, and we are inclined to mediate, (and we are not forcing unwilling participants to fund the mediation), that can be seen as a consequentialist libertarian position. Chances are someone does object to our interference in the Middle East, so forcing that “someone” to contribute to mediation efforts through taxation, better be justified by an imminent threat that is more costly or more irreversible than taxation. Ideally, those who favor mediation should fund it, and those who don’t favor mediation should be left alone.

Consequentialist libertarianism solves all the traditional problems associated with deontological libertarianism; but it invites a new problem: there is no free lunch; consequential libertarianism requires thinking about the situation, not just applying some rule of thumb that was designed for a different context.

April 28th, 2009 Posted by eaglescout | Iran, Iraq War, Libertarianism, Mexico, Neoconservatives, No Free Lunch, Opinion, Politics, War | 6 comments