ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Politics & Political Science

Libertarianism, the only logical choice.

Updated on October 20, 2016
CreeViking profile image

Robin Olsen has lived for half a century and has been educated in fine schools. We learn a lot just going through life and making mistakes.

Libertarianism is quite possibly the most fair of any political ideology out there. It is the only system that allows the individual to live his or her own life to it's fullest potential. All over the world today we see communist, socialist and conservative agendas and everyone of them have the same thing in common, government interference in the lives of private citizens, and usually this interference results in a negative impact to the individual and the society as a whole. Dictatorships, corporate bribery, general corruption and religious fanaticism are all virtually impossible in a society where the government has little or no direct impact over the lives of individual people living in the societies being governed. Economically speaking people could either use money or be free to barter exchange of services for goods or other services, in today's world if you do not have money then you are considered a 'useless eater' or 'welfare case' and looked upon with disdain. All because your pocket is not filled with valueless paper currency concocted out of thin air by large unaccountable banks. Taxes would be virtually non-existent as the only thing a government would need money for is to provide for national or local security and to monitor corporations so that basic laws of fairness and environmental concerns are not trampled on. Laws apply to individuals would be based on libertarian principals and would be useful instead of useless and petty as well as being non intrusive.

What do you think?

Do you believe that people should be able to live free of government interference?

See results

Do you believe that people should be able to live free of the limitations of social standards and common beliefs as long as said lifestyle is non harmful to others??

See results

Libertarian Principals and Lifestyle

The first principal of libertarianism is 'Live life as you see fit and respect the rights of your neighbors to do the same thing'. This principal does not forbid anything. You can live on your own, in a small family group or come together in small communities for mutual benefit. Moral judgements of specific lifestyles are not made, there are no 'left' or 'right' wings to argue over. Communism, Socialism or Conservatism does not matter at the national level as all communities and individuals are free to live as they see fit.

Living a libertarian lifestyle would be difficult for many in today's world as many feel the need to constantly dictate lifestyle to others and the most prevalent attitude seems to favor interference in the individual lives of those around them. For example, Polygamy is frowned upon and illegal simply because we have been conditioned by religion to feel that polygamy is immoral. What we have forgotten is that individuals of sound mind have a right to choose whatever lifestyle they wish and if two or more women decide, of their own free will, to share a husband or build a collective family then who the hell are we to say it is wrong? No one has asked us to live that lifestyle if we choose not too and no one is being harmed so why do we feel the need to send in Marshals and seize happy children? Does anyone actually feel better about themselves after reading how a polygamy family has been forcibly broken up and the children seized by the state?

Homosexuality is another area where people feel the need to constantly interfere in the lives of others for no reason other than some twisted sense of personal satisfaction. As far as homosexuality is concerned the only point I ever care about making is that I am not. How homosexuals live their lives is totally irrelevant to me and it should be to everyone else too.

What about the poor?

Do you believe that Libertarianism hurts the poor?

See results

Do you believe that Globalization and Corporate Republics hurt the poor?

See results

Libertarianism and the Poor

Many oppose Libertarianism based on the fact that the system does not allow for helping the poor. Most poverty in today's world is caused by the form of governments we have. Socialism, conservatism and communism all do very little to actually help the poor become self-sustaining. The welfare programs under most of these governments are either non-existent or provide barely enough to survive and the laws in nations run by these types of government restrict the individual from taking actions to boost themselves out of the situation they are in. In a libertarian society, those with few monetary resources are free to exchange services for things they need. For instance, when was the last time someone was allowed to exchange auto repairs for rent? Such exchanges are not supported in the societies that exist today and wealth is based purely on the possession of paper currency. If the poor were allowed to truly use their own skills and abilities freely to change their own situation then we would have far less poor, probably none really as a quick review of human history tells us that most poverty exists only in societies that value money above all else. Were there any poor native Americans before European settlers came to North America? No, but now there are plenty.

In Africa, before the advent of European colonization and the more recent religious incursions, there was virtually no poverty at all. People lived free within their tribal units and the land was prosperous for those who lived there. Then Europeans came and imposed a monetary system on them. That's when the poverty started. When the religious incursions began, today this usually takes the form of radical Islamic fundamentalists killing and converting, the monetary system was reinforced even more, thus increasing the poverty as the Islamic's destroy infrastructure and disrupt tribal communities. All because they feel they have the right to dictate lifestyle and beliefs to others.

Organized labor (Unions) are specifically taboo in a libertarian society as no organization has ever done more to restrict the free movement of individuals and the free exchange of goods and services among individuals than unions have. These deceptive organizations claim to 'look after the rights of individuals' but only as long as those rights are in keeping with the Union's objectives or agendas. when a individual's rights do not support these things those rights are not supported. For example, employers have the right to hire anyone they want. Yet in unionized workplace the prospective employee MUST join the union in order to get employment. In a unionized workplace the individual has no right to negotiate for his own betterment in any meaningful way with his employer and MUST abide by the collective agreement put in place by the union, whether that agreement is in the individual's best interest or not. In unionized environments abilities are second string to seniority so even trying your best bears no direct reward.

Conclusions

In the end every other political system but libertarianism is destructive to us, as individuals, as they are designed to allow for one or two people, or a party, to gain absolute control and dictate lifestyle to others and this, in the end, is unnatural. The organizations that rise up around these systems are destructive and unnatural as well and do nothing to restrain the excesses of these types of governments.

Unfortunately, our systems are controlled by bankers and corporations who do not value individualism or freedom for individuals and anyone who tries to run on values that these guys oppose, like libertarians, are suppressed or painted as 'kooks', 'anarchists' or crazy people in general.

That's too bad in my opinion.

Thanks for reading, please rate

Cast your vote for this hub

© 2013 Robin Olsen

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Garry Reed profile image

      Garry Reed 11 months ago from Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas

      Just found your article. As a longtime libertarian I naturally loved it. I recently joined HubPages and have only written 18 articles so far, but I write full time on libertarian issues under the name "Libertarian Opinionizer." I hope you'll come check me out here: http://hubpages.com/@garryreed

    • CreeViking profile image
      Author

      Robin Olsen 3 years ago from Rural Canada

      Living in Canada I can relate to this comment Jay and agree 100%

      I live a libertarian lifestyle here and simply do not partake in the government programs (except for emergency relief programs as I have this summer due to severe flooding). Grow my own food, raise my own chickens, playing with solar generators to reduce my reliance on the power grid, etc. All these things can be done in Canada regardless of the 'weapons restrictions' and whatever else may be going on.

      Libertarianism is a lifestyle choice. I chose it because I do not trust the alternatives made available to me.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 3 years ago from Houston, TX USA

      To me, Libertarianism is self-reliance. Do not concern yourself with the type of government or economic system into which you were born. Instead, learn how to cope with it or move.

    • CreeViking profile image
      Author

      Robin Olsen 3 years ago from Rural Canada

      I agree 100% regarding the non-existence of true communist states in this world. Russia and China remind me more of military dictatorships than communist countries in that organized opposition to the government is usually met with a military response and there is definitely an upper class in both China and Russia and there always has been.

      Absolute power corrupts absolutely, until this aspect of human nature changes communism and socialism will simply not work. As soon as we appoint a leader the corruption will rapidly set in.

      To be clear, I would actually support a properly configured and governed socialist society. However, such a society does not presently exist and due to the nature of human attitudes will not exist in the near future. Until such a time as human nature changes I feel it better for us to be left to our own devices as much as possible rather than live in a corrupt society slowly spiraling into oblivion.

      In essence, I am libertarian because the other options are simply too big a risk. Thanks for your discussion today Mark. I found it both enlightening and enjoyable.

    • Mark Lees profile image

      Mark Lees 3 years ago

      True, but Libertarianism will only allow them to have ever greater resources. Consumerism is a natural and predictable consequence of capitalism and libertarianism does nothing to address that. If the rich own the means of persuasion (and they do) then all that will happen is more marketing and increased consumerism and commodification.

      Where libertarianism may help is the removal of institutional power structures which are designed to perpetuate inequality.

      You are right that some degree of inequality will always exist but there are political systems which can do much more to address these issues. Indeed, the progressive systems of socialism and communism would both be effective if the concentration of power could be avoided (so basically if anybody actually followed those ideologies rather than twisted them for personal benefit). Marxist communism actually only begins to exist as the state is eroded after breaking the structural inequality in a country. No "communist" state has ever even attempted to get to that position so true communism has never been attempted.

      Other options are anarcho-synicalism and other anarchistic creeds (other than anarcho-capitalism which would just be replacing the state with corporate authority).

      I am certainly not disagreeing with you that states are inherently corrupt and create many of the problems, although if the state was set up with checks on the authority rather than on the people some progress may be possible.

    • CreeViking profile image
      Author

      Robin Olsen 3 years ago from Rural Canada

      No one ever starts from an equal position. Our despair comes from the desire to have as much as the rich people have. This desire has turned us into ravenous wasteful consumers.

      What we really need is the ability to live our lives free from the interference of the rich, who dominate the political agenda for their own desires and consider anyone not as rich as them as 'fodder'.

      When you think about it, virtually ever single serious issue we have today is because of rich people screwing up the world.

    • Mark Lees profile image

      Mark Lees 3 years ago

      Very interesting, although I think that a weakness in Libertarian theory is that we don't all start from an equal position and therefore future interactions are not equal either, which will favour the rich and powerful (something that already exists, but which libertarian thought fails to address).