by
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
May
5, 2002 | I am going to defend the Libertarian Party; its many
stupidities and ethical lapses are too well known for me to attempt
that daunting task.
But
"Master Francis" Fukuyama's outrageous assumptions and
assertions, recently published as "The Fall of the Libertarians"
in The
Wall Street Journal
must be answered.
We
can only assume that Master Francis is too young or ignorant to know
that the lineal descent of Libertarian thought in America today did
not begin with Reagan but with Goldwater. One hates to be judgmental,
but it would be nice to occasionally get the kinks out of your screed
before it embarrasses you and the institution for which you are,
presumably, paid to write.
Ironically
enough, it was Nixon who is most immediately responsible for the
founding of the Libertarian Party. Wage and price controls drove
small legions of Republicans out of that party in the dying months of
1971.
Master
Francis is incorrect in making another assertion. Government does not
run into buildings to save lives. Individuals do that, individuals
who have freely chosen to take up a vocation they well know puts them
in daily hazard for their lives. If I have to depend on anyone or
anything in times of emergency it is the good will of the American
people. Time and time again, they have answered what appeared to be
unanswerable calls with both courage and unimaginable kindness and
generosity.
The
suggestion that it could be otherwise is simply absurd.
The
policy proposed by the CATO Institute is founded on an interpreted
understanding of individual rights. It's funny -- the founders of
this same institution once characterized privatization as
"Garbage-can libertarianism," but they did eventually
figure out how to apply the principles to larger issues, and they
deserve credit for those insights.
The
credit for privatization belongs to Robert Poole of Reason
Foundation, CATO's historical rival in the policy pond that is now an
ocean swimming with ideas from the same sources.
The
issues where Master Francis asserts that "[t]he libertarian wing
of the revolution overreached itself, and is now fighting rearguard
actions on two fronts [are] foreign policy and biotechnology."
It
should be no surprise that the premises of individualism are
inconvenient to this apologist for ever more government and foreign
interventionism.
September
11th did not happen because America was inactive overseas but because
the means we adopt to change minds kill people. Busybody
hyperactivity at our nation's airports does nothing to ensure our
internal security. Letting pilots and citizens carry guns would
render the question moot. The rising assertions of pundits who glory
in power and ignore the reality condemn us to the circularity of one
dumb idea after another. Our present course will not change the ugly
realities faced by individuals living in poverty and fear in other
countries. But that reality is changing, largely thorough the
benevolence of individual Americans and the organizations they choose
to support voluntarily.
Individual
and consensual action has always been the only viable answer to all
previous questions. We are a people facing a future that challenges
us to think and act responsibly as individuals and through
organizations. Americans are well prepared for that challenge.
The
question of "biotechnology" has become a boogie man to
frighten people when it should be merely a tool to enable better
outcomes for those in need.
Children
do not ask to be born. The overwhelming majority of parents love them
no matter what problems they bring with them. But the inane
assertions of Master Francis that parents are not the best judge
illuminates a world view that was born in the stupidities of Marx and
bears no relationship to the founding principles of our country.
Individuals
will be choosing to become parents by whatever means, be it the usual
way or through the costly and sometimes painful means made available
to us through various technologies.
Children
do not ask to be born but their parents are responsible for them when
they are. We would view the liability of parents who chose to
manipulate their children's genes very differently than we would
damage done through the normal course of events. Social and legal
forces moderate the choices we make without government.
Perhaps
in considering this issue we should reexamine our present no-fault
approach in dealing with parents in many specific situations. Women
who subject their children to drugs by prenatal ingestion should be
liable for the damage they do. Liability exacted and enforced by the
victims of intentional harm creates a powerful statement to all who
watch.
If
we used the cultural means at our disposal to mandate responsibility
in our personal lives I suspect we would live in a far better world
today. Maybe then law would really equal justice. Maybe if in India
today women enjoyed the same rights and cultural freedoms enjoyed by
men their parents would not view girl babies as a liability. We
should ask ourselves what we can do to change that view through
peaceful and non-interventionist means.
Will
some parents make choices for their children that those children
later resent? Of course. That is happening now. The practice of
circumcision is under attack for just this reason. It is medically
unnecessary and many men spend time and energy attempting to reverse
the process. What is frivolous and what is appropriate cannot be
decided by government decree but by human custom and human usage.
If
Michael Jackson decides he wants to be white as an adult why can't he
decide he wants his child to match him?
And
we can all agree that many men would be better citizens if they were
less violent - but the way to change their behavior is most probably
not going to be changed through genetic engineering but through
cultural conditioning. In parent language we call that creating
better values.
Master
Francis should try doing that himself.
