Libertarianism Without Rand

(or "Bleeding Heart Libertarianism")

While this note has been in my head for some time, I am prompted to write it down by a friend's fierce reaction to a mention of Ayn Rand in my Facebook profile. I mentioned her in the sense of negative space: Truthfully, I am 41 years old and have not read a word by her. (Oh, certainly there must the occasional quote somewhere in things I have read by others, but you take my point.) What I want to say is that well into my 30's, I came to a very strong set of convictions, which seem to map quite closely with modern "libertarianism," or better yet "classical liberalism," without reading any Ayn Rand, which seems to be unusual.

I probably should read at least some of her at some point. Anyone who inspires such passion, both for and against, must have at least something interesting to say. To even mention reading her is to have some people act like you're talking about the Bible, and others like you were referencing Mein Kampf, and not a whole lot of people in the middle. Here are some things I think I have derived second hand. She was brilliant and maniacal. Most of her devotees seem to have read her in adolescence; I'm surmising that she wrote with a passion and rage of conviction that is very compelling to a young mind taking shape. Well, I have no need of that. I have my Mark Twain, Kurt Vonnegut, and Carl Sagan, and they suit me very well, thank you.

I am, in fact, quite pleased to use the phrase "bleeding heart libertarian" to describe myself. I must credit my wife for coining the term, and she doesn't seem to define it the same way I do, but here is my own take. I still have the exact same goals as I always did. I believe in ending poverty, war, and injustice. I believe that finding a sustainable way to live within the ecosystems of Earth is an obvious imperative. And yes, I believe that providing maximal freedom for individual choices is also profoundly moral and desirable.

And I believe that this last ideal does not trump the other ones listed before it (which would appear to be the Randian view, at least in caricatured form), but rather that it actually serves to advance them. It is not that free minds and free markets produce nirvana, but that that system is the least awful alternative. You cannot do better with centralized planning and control, no matter how hard you try, or how noble your intentions. This is why Churchill's declaration, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones" is possibly my all time favorite quotation. I do not believe in anarchy and selfishness, but rather that voluntary cooperation is the greatest engine for good, and that any form of coerced communalism might be a necessary evil, but it is definitely an evil.

Now, I could be wrong. It has happened. (Jeffery Priddy will give you the exact date, if you care to ask.) But my own passion in these beliefs is founded in the notion that less government will, in general, lead to a better world--not because I want to smoke pot or pay less in taxes. (Not that there is anything wrong with those pursuits, per se. ;-)

Peace, y'all.