Waldo Jaquith

Just because you don’t want laws prohibiting drug use or out-of-wedlock sex doesn’t mean you’d be willing to ignore someone who became addicted to a drug and wanted help to get off the drug, or that you’d react to someone with an STD with anything other than compassion.

When you give people the freedom to make their own choices about their own bodies and lives it doesn’t mean you have abandoned them. Should they reach out for help (once experience does its job as teacher – that’s the “punishment”) there’s no reason not to be there, and to help.

I, too, want government to protect me from harm done by others, but I don’t want it to protect me from myself.

Posted by Janis Jaquith on 30 June 2005 @ 10pm

The problem is the gap between choices and taking responsibility for the result of that decision. If somebody can consistently do the wrong thing and have it work out every time, that provides a strong incentive to do the wrong thing. We want to encourage risk and creativity, yes, but bad choices cannot be without repercussions.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 30 June 2005 @ 11pm

You seem the have the same conundrum that I do.

As of the last year, I can’t call myself Democrat anymore. After reading some libertarian books (perhaps propaganda), I have decided that the Democrats are not the solution, either. However, I have been ridiculed by my fellow libertarians because I still believe in welfare (mind you, I am very good friends with the founder and current president of the largest college libertarian group in the country [to my understanding] here at UGA, and they influence me more than I’d like to admit). I grew up on foodstamps, and here I am today, attending a nationally-ranked school and doing quite well for myself.

Maybe none of the parties have it right. Maybe what we want is a mixture of all the different parties – welfare from the Democrats, personal freedom from the libertarians, and–well, I can’t think of any redeeming Republican qualities, but I’m faintly sure there are some. I believe welfare, when not used as a permanent crutch, helps people like myself rise from the gutters and make something of themselves. That being said, I now have $20k in student loans to deal with. ;) But it’s better than that $6/hour job that I see many adults where I come from contending with.

So yes, I’d love to see that mixture happen; do whatever you want with yourself, but if you’re willing to overcome obstacles, the government will help you out. Beyond that, they’re to do nothing – not legislate morality, not spend billions on unjustified wars, not take away private property rights (sorry, still sore on that one). Allow people to live their life, and help them out when they are willing to do what it takes to rise above what they’ve seen their whole life. Perhaps the problem is education; growing up in rural Georgia made me realize that it’s not that these people are stupid and undeserving of the better things in life, it’s that they *have no idea how to move beyond what they’ve seen*, which includes slapping a Confederate sticker on their lifted truck with a horn that plays “Dixie.” They’ve never known anything but Bible-beating conservatism. It’s what they’ve grown up to understand, and feel accepted by their community in doing so. My heart goes out to those who don’t know how to establish a better position, to have upward mobility in society. I don’t know where I’d be without certain people in my life that made me realize that every person can make whatever he wants of himself. Hey, we have a former alcoholic cocaine addict as a president, so why can’t I? (cheap shot, yeah, sorry. Tequila makes me mean.)

So anyway, moving beyond the rant, I feel your pain. If you figure out a solution in any of the parties out there that exist, let me know, because I’m waiting with bated breath to discover it myself. That being failed…screw it, let’s start one. ;)

Posted by Chris Brown on 1 July 2005 @ 2am

I’m in a similar position, but I consider myself a recovering Libertarian. Lately I’ve been considering whether I’m actually a Libertarian Socialist. The S-word has a lot of negative connotation, but I feel an odd sense of empowerment to take back that dirty word and embrace it. If the right wants to turn Liberal into a bad word, I’ll come back calling myself a Socialist and scare ‘em. I digress…

In truth, I actually think our solutions lie in Socialism, but I believe we can accomplish it without resorting to statism, which was the 20c mode. Statism, more than any Liberal or Conservative policy, is a threat to personal liberty. Try as I may, I can’t seem to convince Conservatives (mostly those who are hijacked by the religious right) to see the statist tendencies in their desired policies. On a related note, I’m very interested in ways that we can reclaim the religious left. Some say it is extinct, but I tend to think it is dormant.

Posted by Duane Gran on 1 July 2005 @ 9am

“If somebody can consistently do the wrong thing and have it work out every time, that provides a strong incentive to do the wrong thing.”

What would be an example of the wrong thing? If it’s a bad choice but it works out, then so what? (As long as no one else is harmed by it.)

Posted by Janis Jaquith on 1 July 2005 @ 9am

Riding a motorcycle without a helmet would be the wrong decision, particularly for a bad driver. I can easily envision somebody who has been in repeated accidents over the years, landing them in the hospital each time, who still refuses to wear a helmet. If their accidents resulted in some serious medical expenses (the libertarian approach), they’d be more likely to start wearing a helmet. If we took care of their medical expenses and made them whole each time, then the penalty for their error is only being injured. For some, apparently, physical injury just isn’t enough of a deterrent.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 1 July 2005 @ 10am

Oh, I get it.

But when it comes to driving safety (helmets and seat belts), I have to note that driving is not the solitary activity most people think it is. Driving is a communal activity. If I’m involved in an accident with a helmetless or beltless person, and that person is killed or seriously injured, then their lack of safety equipment impacts me.

Posted by Janis Jaquith on 1 July 2005 @ 11am

In a libertarian society, nearly everything is a solitary activity, and very little affects others. (Though, as you point out, driving continues to affect others.) In a socialist society, very little is a solitary activity, and nearly everything affects others.

To have libertarian freedoms in a socialist environment is, as you can see, a contradiction.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 1 July 2005 @ 11am

There is no reason why you have to stick to any one approach. It is my experience that the best solutions come from a melting pot of the best aspects of each approach.

I feel that everyone should have access to some minimum level of shelter, food and health care. The next question is, who or what should be responsible for ensuring this basic living conditions? Should it be done at the community level as it was in the past? Or should the government be responsible? Probably at the government level, unless we are willing to do away with national goverments all together and go back to living in autonomous communities.

Beyond that, I would like the government to legislate and enforce laws that protect people’s rights, whatever we decide those should be (another sticky question).

I do not like our social security program and resent all of the money I pay into it. If we had the basic living conditions covered, then the only reason people should need to save for retirement would be if they wanted more than the basics – in which case they could handle their own retirement investing.

I don’t appreciate the government dragging us into wars, yet if we continue with the nationalism model, then it is difficult to escape that. Perhaps it is time to do away with the nationalism model and start a new one: the globalism model. The people of the world elect a government to govern the globe. That government ensures the people have basic living conditions, and protects their civil rights. The only folks they can go to war against would be aliens (we can deal with that problem when we get to it). Hmmm… the globalization model sounds kind of cool. I wonder what it would take to make it happen.

Anyway, what do these opinions make me? A little heat-stroked I think from spending too much time weeding the garden… don’t mind me I’ll just be heading back out now. :-)

Posted by Malena on 1 July 2005 @ 3pm

“If somebody can consistently do the wrong thing and have it work out every time”–

then we’re talking about Dubya.

Posted by kathy on 4 July 2005 @ 1am

The safety net was not designed for hedonistic pleasure-seekers (also not for redundant writers). The safety net was designed for the elderly, the disabled, and the people who worked to put bread on the table so their family could eat.

I have no problem limited safety net benefits to the elderly, the disabled, and those with dependents. I also have no problem combining the safety net with a version of the probation officer: someone to monitor the situation, watch for substance abuse, and has the authority to step in and resolve problems, such as mandating treatment for substance abuse, etc. I’d even go so far as to forward the names of male heads of households who can’t find work to the friendly (or downright scary) local recruitment officer for Uncle Sam’s World Tour Company.

Maybe not. Better to have a parent who can’t handle their shit than to be an orphan. But that’s what it comes down to, whether people can handle their own shit (I apologize for being so blunt) or not. The safety net was not designed for such people, but it was designed for their dependents, for the children that should not be disadvantaged simply because their dad is an asshole who can’t discipline himself.

I guess we can’t legislate ass-kickings for such folks, either …

Unhealthy or broken individuals are sad sights, but unhealthy or broken families are tragedies.

The answer is neither freedom nor government, but community. Instead of hudding behind our deadbolts or relaxing behind our privacy fences, we need to engage with our neighbors, build relationships with those on our block, in our apartment building, on our road. If your neighbor’s kids come home to an empty home, are they welcome to do their homework at your kitchen table? If there is a substance abuse problem, are the kids welcome to stay (or hide) at your house? Are you willing to take the step to get help for your neighbors if it is needed?

When I was 10 or so, a local woman and her son hid in our basement one night because her husband had binged on cocaine and had become extremely violent. I remember huddling in the dark with them listening to her husband and my dad yell at each other until the cops came. That’s community. It’s also the scariest thing that’s ever happened to me.

Unfortunately, the story has a sad ending. Clean for two years, this man relapsed and ending up committing a murder-suicide before the cops stormed the house. Luckily his wife and son were not at home.

When I read a post like this one, I remember him. I remember that night of fear. I remember that we all cried when he died, not because he was necessarily a good man, but because he never conquered himself. He was never free.

Freedom is not the license to treat yourself like shit. Freedom is being able to walk away from that which harms yourself and others.

As another Fourth of July passes, are we truly free?

Posted by Adam Sharp on 5 July 2005 @ 1am

Hmm. To me this says that the world is a complicated place, and in my experience most people who profess an absolutely consistent political philosophy spend a lot of time rationalizing away situations where it doesn’t work.

Safety nets don’t lead everyone to hedonistic lifestyles because they’re generally enough to keep you going, but not enough to keep you comfortable. There are very few people who won’t strive for more than “not starving in the gutter” if the opportunity appears to be available. Examples like the motorcycle helmet are nice “what if” cases, but I’m pretty doubtful there are many people who would wear a helmet “because they might have a serious head injury that would cost a lot,” but not the more immediate “because they might have a serious head injury.” (Granted, there are people stubborn enough to ignore both, but that’s a different issue.)

The main reason why people became dependent on welfare was not because they were lazy or hedonistic, but because there was no transition — welfare cut off completely if you worked at all, and the lowest paying jobs paid less than welfare, with no child care and extremely uncertain prospects for making more than that. A sliding scale that paid less welfare as you made more from work would make getting off welfare a much simpler choice. And free universal child care would do a heck of a lot more to get people off welfare and out of poverty than punitive “welfare reform,” which measures success only by getting people off the rolls, not by getting them into work and out of poverty.

Posted by Jim E-H on 5 July 2005 @ 3pm