I love libertarianism

Until I think about it:

But libertarianism I will freely admit I do not understand -- at least, not in any way that libertarians might like -- and I confess I find it hard to credit what I can decipher only as glorified, self-centered apathy as an -ism at all. From my own experiences and conversations, it has always seemed that modern libertarianism is the political philosophy you tie yourself to if you are too lazy and politically uninterested to come up with any concrete justifications for anything better. It wears well on cynics, especially young cynics that are bitter enough to become conservatives but not willing to thereby subject themselves to a lifetime of being isolated and un-hip, and on old, isolated-by-decades-of-choice cynics that don't give a crap anymore. But I am always a bit surprised when I meet a middle aged or older self-described libertarian who is politically aware and keeps up with current events. Well-informed and libertarian, in all the rooms and hallways I have found myself in, seldom seem to cross paths, except in the context of other words like "pox" and "both houses".

I have heard libertarians rail against food safety standards: if people are poisoned and die, the reasoning goes, the free market will have retribution against the people or companies responsible, and it will work itself out in the end. I have heard libertarians rail against building and fire codes: if people are killed by shoddy building construction, the companies involved will (eventually) stop being hired. Ditto for employee safety, environmental protections, etc. All of these arguments seem shakily founded on a fundamental misunderstanding (or self-enforced ignorance) of what the free market can and cannot do: buildings last long enough that the original builders may be long since dead when a fatal event is finally triggered, and our food supply chain has a long enough tail that, without regulation, tainted food could often not even be associated with an individual supplier. Workplace accidents were indeed always commonplace and frequently horrific, before safety standards, because the actual free market price for a low-income human life has always hovered between cheap and nothing.

As a separate entity and movement, there are open range libertarians of the west, the libertarians in cowboy hats for whom political libertarianism revolves entirely around the premise that they should be allowed to utilize the public lands for any number of industries, and for a pittance, and to any effect whatsoever on their neighbors and communities, but that anyone else who might expect equal rights to the same public land is nothing but a common thief. This is not libertarianism so much as it is simple greed, or the American west version of belt-and-boots nobility: titled lords of barbed wire fiefdoms that the rest of us are expected to pay for, and then lose. It joins with common libertarianism in that both consider the rights of a property owner to trump those of the community and the health and well-being of all others, but open range libertarians then take the next step and simply annex, in their minds, "public" lands as among those that they themselves -- and not any other member of the public -- rightfully own and should gain profit from.

What I despise about libertarian ideology (at least as I so often hear it expressed by self-described libertarians) is the apparent demand made on the libertarian's brain to stay absolutely true to libertarian dogma no matter what facts are presented by reality.

For example, libertarian dogma holds that government is generally undesirable and a "world government" issuing regulations to all countries on the planet is the most nightmarish scenario imaginable. So the libertarian is of course opposed to anything resembling a multi-government organization. However, the crisis of global warming virtually requires collective action by all countries on the planet -- if we value the habitability of Earth.

This puts the libertarian in a pickle. The Earth faces a serious problem, and an Earth-wide approach (world government!!!111!!!) is the only logical course of action. So the libertarian is forced to deny the fact of global warming. That's his solution -- much like a fundie Christian solves the challenge that evolution poses to the Genesis creation story by denying evolution. If reality conflicts with dogma, don't question the dogma -- just deny reality.

Push the libertarian to answer a hypothetical -- "if global warming is happening, isn't collective global action the only solution?" -- and steam will come out of his ears and he'll change the subject. The libertarian is unable to speak the truth: That he values his precious libertarian dogma even more than the planet itself.

The libertarian also believes that all taxes are theft. Taxes steal money from his pocket. He is forced to pay these taxes under threat of imprisonment. Therefore, all taxes are always wrong. The libertarian positions My Personal Freedom Not To Pay Any Taxes Ever Because I Don't Like The Idea Of It as the ideal freedom, the one liberty that must come before all other liberties.

Of course, some government institutions dependent on tax dollars are obviously necessary, and the libertarian will begrudgingly grant that, say, certain parts of the justice system that are impossible to fully privatize are okay to finance with taxes.

Point out that the libertarian just said he's fine with the government stealing money from him under threat of imprisonment to finance a justice system, and steam will come out of his ears and he'll change the subject. He can't dwell too long on the obvious truth -- fatal to his dogma -- that government taxation can and often does result in more actual, real-world freedom for everyone. Even if it does take away My Personal Freedom Not To Pay Any Taxes Ever Because I Don't Like The Idea Of It.

Libertarians are particularly annoying when they voice their dogmatic opposition to universal health care. A net increase in security, quality of life, lifespan and freedom would obviously be the result of universal health care in the United States. The greatest service Sicko performs is to demonstrate this fact by showing the experiences of patients in Western democracies with universal health care, such as Canada, England and France. There can be no question that the citizens of these countries, when it comes to health care, have substantially more freedom in their lives than citizens of the U.S. They're free to go to any hospital, any time, and will get the care they need -- guaranteed. They're free of deductibles, co-pays, sudden increases in monthly payments, arbitrary denials of care by someone who is paid to deny care, surprises about what's covered and what's not, begging for "experimental" procedures, trying to guess how sick they'll be in the future, becoming financially ruined when it turns out they guessed wrong, and a host of other small burdens and large horrors that the U.S. for-profit system imposes on its patients.

The Canadians, French and British are not just free of being bankrupted by a health problem or being killed by a treatable condition because they lack the right insurance. They're also free of even thinking about these terrifying possibilities. Ever.

That's some real, actual, meaningful freedom. That freedom would make a substantial difference in the lives of the vast majority of Americans, even those who have expensive "insurance."

But this freedom from living in fear is meaningless to a libertarian. To grant this freedom the value it deserves, the libertarian would have to break the chain that shackles his mind to his dogma. And when it comes down to it, the libertarian values that chain more than anything else.

(This has been another edition of I Love Libertarianism Until I Think About It.)