Besides, as of today I have now read one book by a Libertarian (I had to skim much of it because I hate accruing overdue library book fines.) and I admit that I ran across some refreshing and relevant ideas in Charles Murray's latest book, Coming Apart. It is a thoughtful book about the decay American social fabric and I recommend it to anyone. One passage I found most intriguing was his speculation about what happens to people if they are kept too "safe." He basically argues that when we are protected from failure life becomes hollow and it is impossible for us to achieve genuine self-respect, meaningful relationships, and self-actualization because it becomes too easy to abdicate responsibility. Here is the beginning of the passage...
"People need self-respect, but self-respect must be earned - it cannot be self-respect if it’s not earned - and the only way to earn anything is to achieve it in the face of the possibility of failing."
Although this is true on an individual level I think it is true collectively as well and I have often thought that this is why many of America's efforts at democracy building have not been as successful as we hoped. Self-determination like self-respect has to be fought for and won. I am not one who has a problem with us ever intervening in other places, but I think we have consistently failed to consider how each citizen of that country engages with the overall narrative of their country and how people derive self-respect from it. For example, we as Americans identify ourselves with the plucky individuals who overthrew British rule and established a unique political and social culture that changed the world. I think this narrative is the subconscious source of much of our self-confidence, all the way from streetwise hustlers to elitist academic liberals. It's no good for us to think Iraqis or Afghans will embrace democracy as a gift bequeathed from someone else. We need to recognize their need to establish their own nationalistic narrative of self-respect. Coddling and attempting to mold someone into exactly what you want them to be is morally suspect, intuitively idiotic, and fraught with danger. Why would it be any different for a nation?
But this book was really more about American society. As a libertarian Murray thinks that slashing the size of government will solve many of our social ills. The main reason that I usually oppose the weakening of our government is that I am afraid it is the only viable counterweight to a competitive corporate culture which is successful largely because it fails to consider the external costs or future consequences of its actions. I know that government is complicit in the survival of this corporate culture but government has also been (think Progressive Era) successful at ameliorating its rapacious impulses in the past. But maybe it won't work this time. Maybe a libertarian would be right to say that removing government is actually the only way to defeat the current incarnation of this persistent corporate malady. Perhaps too much government has taken away our self-respect and we are losing connection with our own unique narrative. Instead of letting the government fight our battles against corporate America, perhaps we the people have to reclaim the responsibility to stand up for ourselves and defend our own future. Perhaps our older brother has been protecting us (not very well) from middle school bullies too long and if he moved on to high school we would discover that we actually have the self-respect and gumption to fight back against impossible odds. Perhaps if we realized that the buck stopped with us, and perhaps only then, we could write or rewrite our American narrative of self-respect with a renewed emphasis on civic engagement, community building, and the willingness to take responsibility for what we buy. What do you think? Wanna be a libertarian?