Misunderstanding the Libertarian Mindset

co·erce [koh-urs]

verb (used with object), co·erced, co·erc·ing.

 

1. to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.

2. to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.

3. to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.

***

On Tuesday I forced myself to listen to Terry Gross interviewing Chris Mathews - man, I hope I’m getting credit for this open-minded effort somehow.  Anyway, Terry spent most of the program lobbing – ironically enough – softball after softball Chris's way.  

Near the end of the interview, Terry asked Chris – as a guy who loves the political process – what his view of those who want to limit government is.  Chris proceeded to caricature the American libertarian’s self-image as a “…cowboy sleeping by himself under a tumbleweed.”  He then launched into the standard spiel about how if we only stop to think about it, we actually do need other people, and then rambled on, in his typical loquacious and self-fascinated way, about how he grew up without money, how he and all his brothers got to go to college on federal student loans, and how his Dad worked in city government. 

<delete insensitive comment about Chris sucking it up because we've all had hard times and then made something of ourselves despite the challenges>

Matthews confuses government with community.  He also confuses two distinct yearnings: individualism and libertarianism.  I don’t know whether his errors are rhetorical contrivances or  genuine misunderstandings, but either way, they need correcting.   

The key attraction to liberty for me is the possibility of minimizing the coercive powers of my fellow Hoosiers, U.S. Citizens, UN Subjects, etc. upon my life.  And it’s reciprocal: I’d really rather you not coerce me, but I also don’t have designs on your future.  The key strategic issue for Republicans, I believe, isn’t really what to do about the Tea Party caucus, but coming to terms with the reality that Conservatives want to herd people toward specific behaviors – just like their counterparts on the Left. 

By the way, I still self-identify as a Republican, but my appreciation of non-coerciveness has opened my eyes to the need for more philosophical consistency.  My strongest political impulse is the freedom of association.

Individualism, in itself, is not the goal.  Rather, it gives me the opportunity to choose my associations carefully.  I choose to be in community with others because I recognize that I need that and that I can contribute to the good of the group.  Most of us aren’t hermits, and we don’t want to live like that.

I choose to be in a local church, which is itself a part of the "Capital C" Church.  I’ve made vows to my wife to stay connected to her deeply until one of us dies, and with God’s help, I intend to not screw up that opportunity.  I have obvious moral commitments to my children, which are for the most part joys to fulfill.  I have business partners to whom I am accountable as well, and I do recognize that I have chosen a neighborhood, a township, a City, a state, and a country in which to live. 

The point of individualism – for me – is that I get to control which of those concentric circles are closer in, and which ones are on the periphery.  The point of libertarianism – also for me – is to secure the right to associate as freely as possible.  But in no way do I imagine myself as a “cowboy sleeping by himself under a tumbleweed.”  Though, if that type of lifestyle really butters somebody’s toast, I’d like to see her free to choose it. 

Despite Senator Reid's grand delusion, government, at any level and to any extent, functions by coercion.  If I'm going to be coerced, I want it to come from people close to me.  I do recognize the need to force some people into specific behaviors - one obvious example is when their actions impinge on my liberty - but I want to look for ways to minimize it.  At the very least, if I can't minimize the coercion itself, I want to minimize its destructive products.  In my view, government is a necessary evil – a mechanism by which people come together to meet only the clearest needs of the population.  How evil government's coercion and how effective its regulation are often functions of its proximity to the citizens being served.  What are the odds that some dude in Washington really understands the needs of a woman in Topeka?  

At the same time, I understand that many view government as a good thing, as a positive expression of community, as the most effective means through which to bring about a just society.  Those are fine desires; I may not share those desires or beliefs, but nor do I take issue with the impulse behind them. 

 

I only take issue with that vision in this respect: exactly whose vision of a just society are you promoting?  For whom do you bear a burden of care, and is it necessarily the case that I also share your burden?  Are you so certain that yours is truly the most just vision for society that you are willing to force me into supporting that vision, and would confiscate my property or imprison me if I don’t comply? 

I don't believe this this week's government shut-down spectacle is really about the Affordable Care Act.  It’s really about Massachusetts trying to make Texas behave like they want.  Well, guess what?  Texans don’t want to be coerced into acting in someone's pet societal drama, because Texans rightly see that New Englanders have only a very limited claim on their lives.  We're in some things together, but not many.  This reality is the basis for the Tenth Amendment.


So, no, Chris Matthews, I don't fancy myself a cowboy.  I just want guys like you to quit fantasizing that you have some right to make me do whatever you want.  Don't you want that, too?  Or are Republican tax dollars truly the life blood of your intractable societal ambitions?