United Liberty
A shift in ideology
Wed, 06/15/2011 - 3:09pm | posted by Tom Knighton
Libertarians have a tendency to come from a right wing background. It’s not unusual for conservatives to find themselves easing over to libertarianism since many conservative espouse some fairly libertarian ideas, like how it’s not the government’s place to do a lot of the things they do. Me? I came from the left. At one time, I honestly didn’t see a problem with socialism in the least. I got better though.
So what caused this shift in ideology?
To start with, it was actually a left-leaning television show called The West Wing. Aaron Sorkin, who would be hard to define as anything not on the left, filled his fictional White House full of colorful Democrat characters. I was a Democrat at the time, so I was completely cool with the show being put together in such a way.
Early on in season one, Sorkin introduced a character names Ainsley Hayes. Hayes, a beautiful and intelligent Republican, was probably there as a token character to appease the people who were convinced that the show was about indoctrinating people. Early on, there was a conversation between Hayes and character Sam Seaborne, a typical Ivy League elite. Seaborne argued that Republicans only cared about one of the ten amendments that made up the bill of rights, while Hayes fired back that sure, while they conveniently chose to ignore the Second Amendment.
The discussion shifted my then thinking on guns. I’ve always loved firearms, but was willing to accept curtails on them for the betterment of my fellow man. That one moment on a television show of all things started shifting my thought processes. I couldn’t get behind the inconsistencies anymore. It was fiction, but it had hit a nerve. I started opening my mind up to other possible alternatives to policy positions I had held for years.
I made a shift to more libertarian positions on most things, but welfare was one I just couldn’t get behind. My previous position had been more about the children of welfare parents than the parents themselves. They didn’t chose to not work. Hell, they couldn’t work in the first place. Why should they suffer?
I’ve said before, and in several places, that my full shift to libertarianism came by way of Atlas Shrugged. I’ve since read it four times. However, Rand’s words from the fifties, her envisioned ideas of people who expected handouts, sounded a great deal like the people I had heard on television arguing that they deserved their welfare money. They had been receiving it for years, they needed it, and it was theirs. It rang incredibly true to me and I realized that socialism destroys the individual desire to achieve.
The idea of taking an idea and making it a reality happens in every economy. One of the most versatile firearms in the world, and most reliable, is the AK-47 and its variants, which came out of the Soviet Union. Great ideas will happen regardless. However, they thrive best when people can name their own rewards for their actions. Medals aren’t the same thing as knowing your child can go to Harvard, Princeton, Yale or anywhere else they want to go without a penny of debt. Parades are awesome, but they don’t let you see places you have never seen on trips of a lifetime.
There’s more than that though.
Socialism destroys the individual’s desire to do much of anything. The natural human reaction is to do as little as possible for as much as possible. It’s built into our DNA, passed down for thousands of years. It’s not likely to change either. When people know they won’t lose their jobs no matter what, they do almost nothing. They don’t need to. And yet, socialism generally teaches that people have a right to a job, regardless. Hmm.
Once I started seeing this, I couldn’t help myself. I honestly don’t believe the government has a place in telling us what we can and can’t do if it doesn’t hurt someone else. I don’t see why government needs to be so large and take so much money from individuals and even companies, except that it insists on doing things it has no business doing.
All that played into me becoming a libertarian. Yes, I’m on the outside of American politics, but I’m at least home.
Hey Tom,
I’ve always thought that a large portion of the left would become libertarian if they could realize that ‘the emperor has no clothes,’ as they say. You might find this article interesting- granted, the author is speaking of libertarian anarchism vs. libertarian minarchism, and I think you fall under the latter.
http://mises.org/daily/2099
I hope you enjoy.
Mick
I’m definitely in the latter category, though I do understand and respectfully disagree with folks in the former category.
Your basic principles are contradictory. This:
“Great ideas will happen regardless. However, they thrive best when people can name their own rewards for their actions.”
not only ignores the existence of the marketplace, but is contradicted by this:
“The natural human reaction is to do as little as possible for as much as possible. It’s built into our DNA, passed down for thousands of years. It’s not likely to change either.”
Both statements are received “wisdom” of your ideology. Like many libertarians, you write as though you were born yesterday, had no real life experience, and don’t know any actual people. Or, rather, you write as though an accurate depiction of life can be derived from books and catch phrases.
Forget Rand and what you see on tv. It’s as myopic to be a knee-jerk libertarian as it is to be a knee-jerk liberal.
If you’ve read Atlas four times, it’s damaged your brain. But there is hope. Invest two bucks and read this, and then put the books down and pay attention to your actual life:
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/54707
(And if you think what America has to day is “socialism,” you don’t know the meaning of the word. The close collaboration of government and private corporations—what, in fact, we do have—is more characteristic of fascism.)
OK, “John”. I’ll concede the appearance of contradiction. I didn’t phrase it well and that’s fair enough.
Most of the rest of the comment though? Get over yourself. Seriously. You want to discuss a difference of opinion, then you can try using language that isn’t so insulting. My brain is damaged? Wow. What a way to convince me I’m wrong. Did your little $2 book teach you how to talk to folks?
The truth of the matter is that I am not an Objectivist and don’t buy into Rand’s philosophy. However, she did see first hand how people act when they can get by on the public dole. I’ve seen it myself, so I know it’s not wrong either.
Tell you what. You want to discuss this post? Come across a little less insulting and I’ll be happy to delve deeper into this with you. Otherwise, whatever.
It has always been amazing to me in these discussions that when there are really critical points raised about an “opinion piece” that the response always turns around the author’s hurt feelings and the nasty tone of the comments, rather than coherent responses to the criticisms.
“Appearance of contradictions” in what way is there merely an “appearance”?
You are not a Randian? O.K., how could one ever discern that from your original piece? You obviously believe that Atlas Shrugged is a masterpiece of libertarianism, when Rand in fact despised libertarians and libertarianism and never admitted any family resemblance.
Largely Rand was right. Her views are a hodgepodge of late French Revolutionary babble about “reason” mixed, amusingly, with Frederick Neitzsche. Neither of those sources have anything to do with libertarianism, and Rand’s pretenses to know something about the history of philosophy and economics are laughable.
I called it an appearance of contradiction in that there appears to be a contradiction in my logic as outlined by the commenter. He’s right, the two sentences do seem to contradict. That was because I left out a key word (that MANY do the minimum). Without that word, the two definitely contradict. I’ll own that screw up though. No argument.
As for me not being a Randian, you couldn’t discern that. I just thought I’d throw that out there so there’s no confusion. I disagree with a lot that Rand said. However, her book did help lead me to libertarianism, whether she considered herself on or not (and I already knew she didn’t care of my kind when she was alive.).
Thank you for your article. Most Libertarian supporters are evenly divided in their background, 25% each libertarian-oriented, Right, Left, center.
For information on those working on such issues using voluntary solutions worldwide, please see the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization at http://www.Libertarian-International.org Hope you enjoy.
Post new comment