Who are the Real Wide-Eyed Idealists?

By Kenneth Prazak

Libertarians regularly are accused of being idealists–oblivious to the real world and its shortcomings. We are told that we are out of touch. That our solutions would only work in a perfect world. People need to be regulated; you can’t give them unfettered freedom. They’ll run amok.

So those who believe in government control, a vast majority of citizens today, always call for more regulation to solve a problem a little less regulation didn’t cure. When the problem gets worse, the answer is, of course, more regulation. And so the cycle continues. Very few ever question the method. After all, to suggest “punishing a wrong doer after the act is too late,” so they say. The wrong has already occurred.

But shouldn’t we check our assumptions that regulation works to stop the harm. Of course, time after time, history has shown that regulation doesn’t stop the harm. It occurs anyway. That is the reason for the call for more regulation. When it is pointed out that adding regulation upon regulation didn’t work, it is countered with, “Well, regulation stops at least some of the harm. Without it, things would be even worse.”

But would it? In a system that emphasizes personal responsibility, i.e. retribution and restitution, instead of regulation, yes, there would be wrongs committed and wrongs punished and righted. In a system of regulation there also would be wrongs committed. There is no ideal world in either method . But in which belief system is there the presumption that it could be ideal? Not in the system that calls for restitution. Those who call for person responsibility are the realists. No, the true blind idealists are the ones who always call for greater government control through regulation. It is always presumed that the extra added layer of regulation this time is finally going to solve the problem.

I suggest it is time that those who call for government regulation enter the realm of the real world. You are not going to perfect life. Humans, being humans, are going to make mistakes; sometimes they are going to make immoral choices. The question we must ask ourselves is this: In which system will the least harm be done? In which system will the perpetrators of crime and tort be held more accountable?

Is it in the system of regulation? Well, what does regulation do? It attempts to look at problems ahead of time and modifies behavior through government controls through codified law. Codified law looks at everyone the same. Since a certain percentage of people will act thus-wise, given certain parameters, we must control all peoples’ behavior thus-wise.

Take a look at drunken driving. Even though everyone’s capacity to drink alcohol differs, even though everyone’s capacity to drive safely differs, an arbitrary limit of percentage of alcohol in the blood determines whether or not a person is safe to drive a vehicle according to vehicle code. And since the system isn’t working, the limit is continually lowered-- lowered to the point, I would say, that getting arrested for drunk driving can ruin people’s lives even though they never hurt anyone on the highway, even though they never assaulted anyone on the highway with a threatening manner of driving. No, they just happened upon a “sobriety checkpoint”. “May I see your papers pleasssse?” Remember when we used to put down Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union for having internal passports? Well we’ve got them now and have to present them at checkpoints. Is this what our founding fathers pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor; for check points that amount to nothing less than a fishing expedition to arrest people on regulatory violations that have little to do with whether or not they live their lives in respecting the rights and lives of others?

And that is the real tragedy about regulation. It punishes an individual as part of a group, not on the merits or demerits of the individual, but instead on how some social “scientist” has placed that individual in some sort of grouping. So now, residents of one community are stopped in broad daylight at checkpoints of another community to see whether or not they have their village stickers on their vehicles. Municipalities post signs that the seat belt law is a “primary enforcement activity.” Set aside for the moment the fact that one would hope catching murders, robbers, and rapists should be the posted primary enforcement activity. What can be more important for an individual than to decide what for themselves is the proper level of safety? If one can’t make that all important choice about ones life safety, then one isn’t truly free. The underlying assumption of such laws is that our lives are not our own, but are owned by the government.

When punishment by regulation becomes arbitrary as by definition it must, what does this do to people’s respect for the law? If there is no justice in law, that law will breed lawlessness since there is no connection between the way one behaves and the resulting law enforcement activity on the person. One might call this state-imposed terrorism. And every action will have a reaction. To the extent that government is arbitrary in its enforcement of law will be to the extent that citizens behave arbitrarily to those laws. Terrorism breeds terrorism.

Now let’s look at the libertarian approach to solving problems, also the approach of our founding fathers, the only approach consistent with Constitutional principles, consistent with freedom-- that of establishing a system of restitution to victims by the perpetrators of the wrong, and retribution to those who commit real crimes such as murder, rape, and robbery. There is a direct one-to-one link between perpetrating a crime and being punished. There is a logic, a rationality to the law. If one keeps to the golden rule, one doesn’t get harassed, regulated, hassled, overburdened and oppressed by government. In effect one lives in freedom as long as he respects the rights of others to do the same. The guilty are punished. Yes, in this system, wrongs do happen, but in reality, in the regulatory system wrongs also happen–but in that system not only to the guilty but to the innocent too.

Libertarians look at societal problems and say, let’s limit them to the greatest extent possible while still preserving freedom understanding that achieving the ideal world where no problems exist is impossible. Others continually draw the illogical conclusion that we can make the world ideal, if we only add this bigger and better regulation in place. When that regulation fails, then another layer of regulation must be added.. This is a recipe for eventual totalitarianism.

Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne is fond of saying, “What government does, is–it breaks your leg, and then throws you a crutch and says, ‘See, if it weren’t for us, you wouldn’t be able to walk.’” We libertarians say that if people didn’t get their legs broken by regulatory fervor (and confiscatory taxation), we would be able to walk just fine. Yes, there would be potholes to look out for, there always will be potholes, but at least in freedom, we wouldn’t have to walk around a maze of roadblocks stifling productivity, creativity, choice, and individuality–those qualities of life that really distinguishes us from the rest of the animal world-- which makes us human. Being directed by government at every turn is not really living–living as a human being, it is a living death. I choose life.

Kenneth Prazak is a co-founder of the Fox Valley Libertarian Party, newsletter editor for the Libertarian Party of Illinois, and weekly radio talk show host for a live call-in show called “Freedom Rings” streamed-live every Monday mornings, 9:00-10:00 AM at www.freedomrings.net. Email ken@fvlp.org