Jeremy C Kester

As I’ve stated before, I do wish to start writing more essays/posts that have a social-commentary and political bent. This is one such attempt. Honestly, it might be rough for a bit as I hone my skills and ideas. Whether or not it is done well, it feels like a good idea to share throughout the process. Enjoy.

I am a libertarian in spirit. This is said even as there are many who give that political ideology a bad reputation, being nothing more than a cloak for vehement racists and closet authoritarians.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy of minimal government and maximum individual liberty. The way that I view it is that a government should be as small as necessary given the needs of the moment. Of course, this can be an endlessly debatable point, if only for the fact that there are many differing opinions on how much authority a government should have at any given moment and for any given scenario. And facts and reasons abound in logic for both.

People vary, not just in physical features — or “races” as some idiots would have us believe — but in personality, temperament and all other characteristics. Some only need be told a goal and they will figure out how to get there; some have to be given every step-by-step direction and detailed reasons for everything. Some people need to have an idea proved to them; some need only hear something to believe it. Running down the list of how differences stack up beyond just skin color and gender is simply mind-numbing.

If anything, though, humans are not logical creatures. Yes, some can use logic to formulate a decision, but most of us, even with those skills, use it simply to validate our own ideas. Not unlike me.

This is where Socrates’ greatest lesson, “know thyself”, comes into play. I’ve been almost forced to evaluate my ideologies to be less staunchly anti-government. My own biases and beliefs were there, guiding my beliefs. It took some self-reflection to back off a hard-lined belief that government was by default a malevolent force and need only be pushed to be a minimal influence in society. I found the view to be narrow and influenced too much on my own desires and/or preferences.

My own political journey is an interesting one. Even to this day I am called everything from a Nazi fascist to a snowflake commie bastard. People have a hard time nailing down exactly where I truly stand, other than the fact that I continue to state that I remain a libertarian. In truth, it is because more than anything, I find that people eventually see government as a tool to bludgeon others into falling in line with their beliefs. It matters little to finding truth through debate, but instead it has become a competition of who can be “right”. Or, who can best use the weight of government or society to punish those we don’t like or agree with.

Libertarianism is not an easy philosophy to live with. By default, it means I am not interested in using government to do anything for me other than to get out of my way. It means that I have to not only agree that others have the right to believe the opposite of what I do, but to practice it. The problem is in part that by giving people that freedom, it risks my own freedom.

Unfortunately, that is where many people end up faltering. There is an inherent human believe (part of where this irrationality comes in) that often is described as simply as a “double standard”. It is the “freedom for me, but not for thee”. Libertarians in the more open sense tend to love government intervention when it is convenient. Yet don’t we all?

There are plenty of individuals who live to counter any authority. I would argue that they are few. True anarchists of the like that would happily live without any governmental structures are akin to a unicorn. These people who are disagreeable to a fault are really those I speak of. But, just as much as they would argue that government should stay out of their way, they might also hold the idea that government should help to keep others out of their way, too.

This question, of what government should and shouldn’t be allowed to do, of how much authority it should have is at the heart of this. In truth, I am not sure. If anything, what I believe is that when a government of any style or type begins to move from a position of guarding the rights and interests of its citizens to using its citizens to guard and protect itself, then there is a problem. Where that line exists though might depend on where one stands — where their own interests align with the government’s. Maybe that is why we can’t ever seem to agree. But then again, should we?