In response to the libertarian columnist, I would like to clarify a few points in the argument proposed. The claim was made that "libertarianism is a philosophy that values individual rights and freedom above all else." Furthermore, it was pushed, one should be able to do anything to oneself because it ought to be your right to do so, "unless it directly affects the rights of another," in which case the government reserves the right to step in.
Indeed, the government should not tread on the rights of the individual unless the action itself compromises the rights of another. However, the notion of "rights" should be clarified, specifically, where they come from. Also, why this could affect this solid argument. [sic]
Our libertarian columnist glanced over these answers, though I doubt they [sic] saw them. The answer lies in the state of nature which was first constructed by Thomas Hobbes in his work "Leviathan." In it he tries to imagine the events leading up to the invention of the state, and why this occurred. People, in the state of nature, could do as they pleased, because they were free from all authority - even themselves. Of course, Hobbes did not see this as a utopian Garden of Eden, and rightfully so. Instead, Hobbes saw chaos and death and uncontrollable destruction. It was in this chaos that order was born. This order, was the state, the government. Because in the state of nature everything was available to everyone else, people frequently lost their property and lives to whom ever [sic] was capable of taking it. The state offered something new. The state would grant you certain freedoms that the state of nature could not gaurantee in return for certain freedoms that one had in the state of nature. These freedoms the state gave you were protection ones: the right to life and to property, to name a few.
So as we see, the state itself birthed the idea of rights, and it is therefore the property of the state to weild [sic] with absolute power. Eliminating the power of the state to uphold its side of this social contract would be devastating to all. And this would ultimately lead us back to the state of nature, where life was "nasty, brutish, and short." So, this rebuttal, coupled with the devastating effects of the fact that every action someone makes directly affects another individual puts down the libertarian objections.
Lastly, on economic liberalism, which is the American term for 'fiscal conservativism', [sic] and the libertarian's view of the government ruthlessly bleeding the poor, hard working individual only because the state 'thinks it has better uses' with their money [sic]. This stance is unfounded. As the tenants of classical liberalist economics itself points out, [sic] the state ought to procure money from the citizenry in order to accomplish that which cannot be taken by the private industries. Adam Smith, the founder of classical economics even thought the state should take money to invest it into the public good. Again, we see the melting away of the libertarian argument.
In closing, I thought it fitting to describe the hypocrisy and ineffectiveness of libertarians, and to fully sum up these rebuttals. However, I think our libertarian columnist best sums up the root problems behind the libertarian thought. When closing the article, our libertarian columnist wrote that the best way to dispose of the sea creature we call a government is "to drown it."
Steven Smallpage is a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs.
