I always find article ideas in political discourse and discussion. For me, it's like finding grapes in a vineyard. The only question is time. Do I have the time between my day job, raising two kids and taking care of the house and then a little bit of time for me to write that article?
Well, as it turns out, I do have time for it today. I've been running into a few libertarians lately, and though I like much of what libertarians have to offer, I think they, like anarchists, may be putting the cart before the horse.
The problem I have with libertarians is that they seem to think that business is going to solve everything. Let business be free and they will solve it. Well, if that is so, why didn't they solve the need for training before and during the Great Depression? Business has an interest in what is taught in their shops to maintain a pipeline of people who can do the work required for the business to survive - not for the people to thrive. Government of the people, by the people, for the people, has a broader interest in training, and that is to generate tax revenue that hopefully, will be used to serve the people.
I was once a libertarian myself because I found agreement with many of their ideas. I'm a liberal, but I lean anarchist. I don't believe in the use of force to accomplish the goals of humanity (whatever they may be), rather, I offer and follow choices based on natural consequences.
This is how I raise my kids. I don't punish them for their mistakes. I allow them to see the consequences of their actions for themselves, but I intervene if they could hurt themselves, someone else or damage property.
I lean to anarchy because leaders tend to abuse their power. I am a liberal because I understand how businesses tend to abuse the people who work for them. And until we can understand why people abuse power, and that understanding is commonplace, I will remain a liberal.
In almost every case where I can see abuse of power, I can see victims of child abuse. For everyone that we call "evil" if we look hard enough, we can find elements of child abuse in their behavior, for every abused child grows up to impose the fate of their own childhood upon others. Hitler, Ceausescu and a few others come to mind.
Now it is fair to say that not all victims of child abuse grow up to be evil. Some of them will identify as victims and grow up to be submissive. Others may find recovery and work through their unresolved issues, and they may go on to do great things. But the people we call "evil" are just adult children exhibiting challenging behavior.
If you raise kids while respecting their human rights, they will respect the rights of others as grownups and as participants in government. That is the only way we're ever going to have anarchy or even something close to a free society. If you come up with a better idea, I'm all ears.
As to libertarian philosophy or ideology, I see it as just a front for business. I've read up on the history of Milton Friedman, the supposed father of libertarianism (sounds like a disease), and found that he's really just a shill for business and the accumulation of power by the wealthy. And those who are wealthy and seek power, are pretend leaders. They don't actually govern. And if they are seeking power over others, they are seeking refuge from the loss of their innocence, from the abuse that still lives in their heads.
It is easy to think of child abuse as beatings, isolation, neglect and other obvious signs of abuse. But for the freedom that we want, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard.
When we look to the animal kingdom, we see that most animals teach their kids how to survive. Animals do not live on instinct alone. The mother is usually the one to teach the kids how to hunt, how to eat, how to find shelter, how to avoid being prey. The animals we read about in children's books all teach their progeny how to live.
To put it another way, kids are always looking to learn from the parents. Everything that the parents do looks like survival skills to kids. This is true in humans as it is in other animals. If you lose your temper, kids will model that behavior. If you demonstrate how to sooth yourself when something upsets you, kids will learn that, too. They learn by watching you, the parent.
To be a bit more subtle, if you give your kid an ultimatum like, "pick up your toys or I'll lock them up", they learn to model that behavior, too. That's extortion. Locking up the toys is not a natural consequence of leaving the toys out. A natural consequence of leaving the toys out is stubbing your toe on a toy while walking through them.
If I want my kids to clean up their toys, I make it a challenge. I do what I ask them to do to model the behavior. But I don't resort to threats or ultimatums to get them to do the work. I model what I want, I challenge them to work with me like, "I bet I can do this faster than you". I make simple tasks a challenge because I know that my kids want to prove themselves to me. I know that they derive joy from mastery of skills.
But those threats and ultimatums are models for behavior in government. When we raise kids with threats and ultimatums, our kids see that as a model for government, not because that is how government is or even should be, but because the feelings from those threats are familiar.
If you keep the peace in the house, the kids will seek the familiar feelings of peace. If you lose your temper often, your kids will seek the familiar feelings of anger. If you spank your kids, your kids will seek pain because that feeling is familiar. We nurture and perpetuate that which is familiar.
All of this peace and freedom stuff requires discipline. Most people think of discipline as reward and punishment. But I've seen my kids find reward in just mastering a skill, without any worry about punishment. This is why I don't think of spanking as discipline. It is not a natural consequence of their actions. And I don't want to be the consequence of their actions. I want my kids to experience the natural consequence of their actions without my intervention. I don't want to think for them, I want them to be free to think for themselves.
Freedom isn't some lofty concept built by the Founding Fathers, or some libertarian manifesto. Freedom is what we derive from consistent daily action over time. It is a natural consequence of having no desire to control others. It is a natural consequence of teaching others how to live in peace. Freedom requires discipline of mind and body and that includes all the feelings and thoughts we may have when other people don't do what we want them to do. Freedom requires us to learn how to respond, not react.
It if for this reason that I have no desire to control anyone else. I want the peace of mind in knowing that they don't want to control me. Freedom is mutual. If you're not free, I'm not free. That lack of desire to control anyone else comes from years of discipline, of being mindful that I cannot anticipate every contingency. I can only just watch and see what happens next.
Freedom is not even about control over myself and my surroundings. It is about acknowledging how little control we have, and noticing that we don't need to control very much beyond how we're thinking and feeling. Freedom is about watching life happen and participating in it.