The Libertarian Temptation

If I may be so bold, I'd wager I've got things pretty well near figured out. And while twenty years may as yet see me a Marxist, marching with Troutsky, I'm deem the prospect unlikely. I have no aversion to change, but at this juncture I'm content with a blend of Roman Catholicism and a slightly bastardized version of libertarianism for philosophical guidance. It has served me well.

There are advantages to having things figured out. Day in and day out I see things that confirm that I am, in fact, correct, or nearly so, when it comes to most of life's larger questions. To steal a quip from Chesterton: "At least six times during the last few years, I have found myself in a situation in which I should certainly have become a Catholic, if I had not been restrained from that rash step by the fortunate accident that I was one already." Catholic works there, but substituting libertarian, small "l", and things work out just as splendidly, probably even better.

Still, there are times when I feel like the genuinely convicted atheist must. Agnosticism I understand, but atheism seems hasty, even if it is more courageous. I understand questioning the supposed goodness, and even the existence of a higher deity. Where I get hung up is in becoming absolutely sure of something which can never be proven. It probably makes one very proud to have finally whittled away at the conundrum we call existence and concluded, like Nitschke, that God is dead. This lasts for--I'm just guessing here--about five minutes until the sudden realization brings dread and, in all likelihood, an audible profanity. No God. F$@&! Now what?

Nitschke did the sensible thing and went mad. Sartes says that "life begins on the other side of despair." Huh?

The same thing happens to the libertarian now and again, though certainly to a lesser extent. It's amusing to explain just why we are royally dinked. Being the next Roman Empire is exciting, but I reckon it's going to be a big downer, too. Fifty years from now, I get to say, "See, I told you," quite smug-like. And then, in a less sanguine moment, the governmental authorities will escort the masses--or at least jerks like myself--to slave labor camps for a little exercise.

This malaise hits me every so often; at least it keeps my ego in check. I haven't pegged the exact reason for these bouts of, neither depression nor despair, but something akin to a righteous indignation tempered by a slight sadness. I figure my head has a massive queue inside somewhere, and the programmers don't have all the bugs worked out in the archiving process. Every so often the queue fills up and the system crashes.

Anyway, the data entry that caused a overflow error--to pen a metaphor--was this little guy. It's a short story, so I'll just paste it in its entirety.

Drivers in the city of Detroit will have to end their calls, as a cell phone ban has been approved. The Detroit City Council passed a cell phone ban for the city of Detroit on Wednesday. Council voted 8 - 1, with Sheila Cockrel as the only opposing vote. Council members said drivers could still use hands-free phones. Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick must also approve the ban.Violators can be ticketed and fined.

Now I realize, in the grand scheme of things, there are much bigger fish to fry. This is just a little sunfish, hardly worth the trouble of dirtying the knife. I think the thing that got me was the lone vote of opposition. Nine men and women, elected, which is to say sanctioned, by the good people of Detroit. Eight of them--eight--see no problem with prohibiting adults from making a call on a cell phone while driving.

Now I realize driving and dialing is probably not a behavior that should be engaged in casually. Some attention is required to multi-task successfully. Certainly there are people who should be prevented from making phone calls while driving, as they shouldn't be allowed to pilot a large and rapidly moving vehicle under any circumstances.

If we play the reduction ad absurdum game, I don't know what will be legal in twenty years. I really don't. Neither owning a cell phone nor living near Detroit, this doesn't effect me. Yet it does. The masses, surrendering yet again a frivolous freedom for the promise of safety, will make it all the more easy for Mother Government to take away liberty again and again until, dash it all, we've no more liberty to give. Of course, if we're safe, who cares. Yes, this is the actual defense, and no, I can't explain it.

The frivolous freedoms are the ones really worth fighting for. A man who lights up a cigarette and urinates on his back lawn knows who the earth belongs to, and no, the answer is not Uncle Sam. I don't know if talking on the cell phone while driving is likewise liberating, but I do know that handing over freedom squelches the spirit and eats at the soul.

Enjoy things while you can, I guess.