Self-Governance

I’ve been re-evaluating my political philosophy in the wake of our last set of emails, and (drumroll please)… I am now declaring myself a libertarian.

One fact that set me on this road was, oddly enough, one I heard from Sean Hannity- 95% of America’s wealthy didn’t inherit their wealth. The only time a single statistic has been so transformative to my viewpoint was when I learned that 2.5 million Americans use guns in self-defense every year. So I immediately researched this 95% figure, and it turns out there are a number of studies getting somewhat different figures depending on their methodology- ranging from that high of 95% down to 80%. But the point is clear- most of America’s rich did not start out that way. They earned their money.

I used to think of inheritance like this: assuming a person has the right to whatever property he earns, how does this guarantee his descendants the right to inherit that property simply by virtue of birth? But the proper way to look at it is not in terms of the heir’s right to inherit, but in terms of the deceased’s right to do what they will with their own property.

Keep in mind that the estate tax, when it was originally enacted, was lobbied for by some of the nation’s wealthiest; men like Andrew Carnegie, who had worked to earn their fortunes and did not want to see the rise of a permanent privileged class in this country.

All the arguments I’d heard, including from Ron Paul, framed the argument over socialism vs. libertarianism as one of practical consequences, a line of reasoning I could only go so far along. I still am not convinced that libertarianism is a superior course in terms of practical benefits, for that matter.

But you framed the issue in a way that halted me in my tracks: it isn’t a matter of practical consequences. It’s a matter of individual rights, and the rights of the government. I had said that the state was a form of social contract, by which we agree to abridge certain rights in favor of a stable and effectual society. You replied, yes indeed- and that contract is the Constitution.

And you’re right. The Constitution is an exclusive list of the federal government’s powers. The only way to extend those powers is to change the Constitution by the method the document itself provides. Something like universal healthcare, when viewed in a strict constitutional sense, would really have to be an amendment. An amendment of the social contract, arrived at by constitutional process, by which we agree to abridge a few of our rights in order to further the common good. Of course, I am not yet convinced by either side of the debate over the practical consequences of such programs.

Anyway, my position on all this is far from cemented, so my viewpoint will probably change in the near future. What I’m going to try to do is play devil’s advocate whenever I’m around proponents of either side. I’ve already been doing this with my brother, an avowed Marxist and local activist- that’s been fun