Civil Libertarianism: What a Wonderful Phrase!

I’m talking about civil libertarianism today. I’m going to try to not be obnoxious about it, but I can assure you I will be. Most of the time when I talk about politics, it’s about stuff that makes me angry. Well, civil libertarianism is something that makes me happy, so here you go. Also, please excuse my cheesy Lion King references.

Civil libertarianism is a broad range of thought that encompasses both left and right wing libertarianism. It’s probably the most important aspect of the classical liberalism school of thought.

Now that all that pretentious sounding stuff is out of the way, what actually is civil libertarianism? It’s the view that people’s personal lives and decisions should not be subject to government legislation. So basically, it means no worries for the rest of your days.

It’s not specific to the Libertarian Party, either. I’d say, in fact, that the Green Party is also a civil libertarian party. The difference is that the Libertarian Party extends the concepts to the economic and environmental realm. But we’re not talking about those issues today. We’re talking about the civil realm.

The Nanny States of America

Civil libertarianism isn’t something you see even the slightest bit of in either major political party in the U.S. The new norm in American politics has become competing nanny government legislation, for both Democrats and Republicans. Bill De Blasio, the Democratic mayor of New York has been pushing really hard to ban the New York Yankees from chewing tobacco during games, on account that it’s unhealthy and sets a “bad example.” It’s a super insignificant example, but that’s exactly the point. Since when is something that insignificant open to be the subject of legislation? Here in SC, legislation was passed through the state senate and sent to the house that would hold private companies liable for crimes committed by immigrants under their care. The senator who introduced that legislation was Kevin Bryant (incidentally, Anderson friends, he’s up for re-election this year). There’s a lot of other examples of this sort of thing throughout the U.S. (especially in New York and California). Laws like this stem from the mentality that if something’s wrong, it should be illegal.

That kind of mentality is not even remotely what America’s Founding Fathers had in mind. Now don’t let me lose you here. I know that I personally zone out when I hear people talk about the Founding Fathers intent, because when they do, the next words out of their mouth usually aren’t even close to what the Bill of Rights or the Preamble say. The general principle of those documents is this mentality: each person should be free of government constraints until they violate another’s freedoms.

The consistency and practicality of this principle is surprising. Is someone free to murder? No, they’re violating another’s right to life. Is someone free to steal? No, they’re violating another’s right to possession. When you think of the role of government in this context, things can make a lot more sense (including the U.S. constitution).

The type of government that this sort of thinking produces is one that exists solely to protect its citizens’ rights. This government answers to the people before the people answer to it. It’s made of representatives who are employees of its citizens, since they are paid by the citizens’ tax dollars and chosen by the citizens. I believe this model was the original intent of the founders, and it’s a major contrast to the sort of parent-child relationship that many now think the government should have with its citizens.

Why it matters

We’ve all heard the mantra “power corrupts,” and it’s become a catch-phrase that Americans and others use when talking about government. It’s interesting, then, that so few are concerned about the scope of authority held by the government. Nothing is off-limits for legislation. In the 20’s and early 30’s, alcohol was illegal. During the Vietnam War, several young men were legally forced to enlist in the military. During the Second World War, Japanese-Americans were held in internment camps. In South Carolina, marriage between blacks and whites was technically illegal until 1998. To top it all off, Cuban cigars are still illegal for Americans to purchase. These are only a few examples of the bizarrely wide-reaching scope that U.S. laws have.

The founders of the U.S. definitely would not have been ok with the insanely micromanaging government we have today. No, it’s nowhere close to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany, but why on earth should we use those countries as the measuring stick? It’s like saying “sure, I killed one person, but Jeffrey Dahmer killed seventeen people. So I’m not that bad.” The point is that if the government has power to govern people’s personal lives, then it has room to expand, and increase that power. The purpose of civil libertarianism is to keep the government out of those areas to start with.

Arguments against civil libertarianism (and why they don’t work)

Some of these arguments will be based on political theory and some will be based on religion.

1. But doesn’t Romans 13 say that the government is supposed to promote good and guard against evil? (I’m not going to quote the entire chapter, so look it up yourself).

   No, it doesn’t say that. It’s a chapter about how Christians are supposed to relate to the government in power. It basically just says you shouldn’t break the law. However, we also see passages elsewhere where people break evil laws because they violate their conscience, so that’s the catch.  

   As for biblical prescriptions regarding the establishment of government, I don’t believe there are any. However, if someone has a biblical worldview, then that would naturally effect the way they think a country should be governed. I would say that the numerous examples of brutal, oppressive kings in the Old Testament should serve as a warning against a particularly powerful government.

2. But we need to protect American values!

   First, no. Just no. That’s Donald Trump crap. Second, if by American values, you mean life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then yes we do. Other than that, there are no “American Values” because America has always been a melting pot of different cultures. Also, America isn’t a Christian nation, and it never has been. The constitution is a document that was inspired by classical liberalism and enlightenment thinking, not preachers.  

   I’m obviously not disrespecting Christianity here, since I’m a Christian myself, but Jesus very clearly said that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). So for the love of Christ (literally), let’s stop pretending that it is. Also, the great commission wasn’t referring to government legislation, it was referring to personal actions.

3. But won’t a libertarian government make it difficult to defend us from terrorists?

   Well, not really.  

   Naturally, though, it would be easier for the government to fight it if they had unfettered access to phone records and browsing history, and they already sort of do because of the Patriot Act (which was supported by both major parties). However, that kind of authority is so blatantly unconstitutional that it makes me want to vomit. Most things about American politics make me want to vomit, but the Patriot Act does more than almost anything else.  

   Also, if the U.S. practiced international libertarianism, then terrorism would be much less of a problem. It’s common knowledge that the U.S. was one of the chief sponsors of the Taliban during the 80s. This was because we had a common enemy: Soviet Russia. So the good ol’ U.S. of A decided that it’d be a good idea to give these crazy people guns, because they didn’t like communism, and anyone who doesn’t like communism is our friend, right? Wrong, obviously. Now, almost thirty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. lawmakers are ticked-off that Russia is killing ISIS members in Syria instead of us. According to senators like McCain and Graham, it somehow violates American sovereignty to be involved in a country halfway around the world from the U.S. 

   Now the U.S. is arming “peaceful” rebels who are fighting the Syrian government. What’s that verse in the bible about a dog returning to its vomit?

4. But if you’re a Calvinist, then don’t you believe that man is totally depraved, and therefore unable to govern himself?

   Well, even if a non-libertarian government was in place, the leader would still be a totally depraved man. So man would still be governing himself. 

   I do believe in man’s depravity (you’d have to be blind to not believe in at least some form of human depravity). However, that’s one of the main reasons I am a civil libertarian. No matter how well-intentioned, a single person’s efforts to do good will fail if he is granted absolute power. In the same way, if people of the same mindset are the sole possessors of power, they will be corrupted, no matter how noble that mindset is, and will trample on the rights of those who don’t share their views.

5. But don’t civil libertarians think that gay marriage should be legal?

   Yeah, so? Even if you don’t agree with a specific practice, at the end of the day, if that practice is not harmful to other people, there is no reason for it to be illegal. If you follow the principle of legislating morality, the laws become subject to perceptions of morality, which vary a great deal from person to person and worldview to worldview. I’m not making this argument from a moral relativist standpoint. I believe conflicting systems of morality are mutually exclusive, but again, that’s the reason that no one view of morality should become law. If each person is free to practice their religion freely, then you avoid excessive conflict. That’s why the first amendment exists. 

   Also, one of the arguments I hear most from people opposing the legality of gay marriage is “the government doesn’t need to redefine marriage.” Well, this argument makes no sense at all, because in order to redefine marriage, the government would have to have the power to define marriage in the first place, and that’s just foolishness. 

   However, there’s a right-wing and left-wing problem when it comes to this issue. Right-wingers often think that these practices should be illegal (or at least restricted). However, occasionally left-wingers go further than the protection of civil rights when it comes to these issues. Hillary Clinton, towards the beginning of her presidential bid, said that mindsets needed to change. Well, when it comes to loving people you disagree with, yes, mindsets do need to change. My question is, why is a presidential candidate talking about mindsets? Is she hinting that she will do something as president to change those mindsets? Since when does the government have authority over mindsets? Oh right, it did have that authority during the McCarthyism-era, when it was a crime to be a communist (or for people to think you were a communist). 

   Basically, legislating people’s mindsets is a two-way street. The religious right often pushes for the legislation of a Christian culture, but the radical left (at least the ones who aren’t libertarian-leaning) push for the legislation of a secular culture. The government should not legislate ANY type of culture.

Conclusion

As I said before, neither of the major political parties here in the U.S. actually fight for civil liberties. This is especially true of the two major presidential candidates that will be facing off this fall. Trump is a textbook right-wing fascist with no soul. Hillary is a corporately owned populist with no soul. The only way either of these parties will lose power is if people vote for different parties. I’m not saying people shouldn’t vote for Republicans or Democrats, but blind party loyalty will eventually kill American democracy and civil liberties if people don’t cut it out. Look really hard at Trump and Clinton. They’re genuinely horrible people. And they’re fascists. Use your brain and vote for someone else.

If anything in this article has offended you, I apologize, even though it was probably on purpose. If nothing else, hopefully you’ll at least start thinking more skeptically about the policies and ideas put out by both major political parties here in the U.S. Keep the ideas of civil libertarianism in your head, and you’ll notice the consistency it has when applied to the role of government. I guess you could say it’s a… problem free philosophy.

BAM - Elimination. Lack of Education.

Emily's ENTJ twin here, 

United States Marine Lewis “Chesty” Puller once succinctly stated my current worldview in better words than anyone else to date. When surrounded by the enemy, and faced with death, he looked at his beleaguered marines and said, “All right boys, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us.
They can't get away this time!!!"

At surface, this displays courage, bravery, and certainly determination. However, at its base, it displays the same reckless anti-fatalism that I believe should permeate communication as well as my own management of relational conflict and personal struggles.

Recently I have become disenchanted with the failure of authority figures (in my life) to adequately respond to problems that are clearly within their ability and purview of competent responses. All life is communicative. To say otherwise is moronic. From the moment we are birthed, we cry out in protest of the bright light that has invaded our comfortable lives. This communication is ceaseless, and only stops when our lungs can no longer draw breath.

Clear communication is not a pearl waiting to be found, not is it a rare happenstance of amazing talented communicators. Miscommunication is a normalcy in relationships today, despite causing so much friction and pain.

Here are some examples:

-       I didn’t hear you say that

-       I thought you meant…

-       Why did you say…?

-       I wasn’t listening…

-       I thought you said…

-       Wait, what did you say?

-       What do you mean by that…?

-       I know you said xyz, but…

-       What I thought it meant was…

Miscommunication is usually a result of:

1. A lack of knowledge regarding clear communication tactics ( which are simple, easy to learn and very foundational
2. A lack of effort on the part of either party
3. A lack of will on the part of either party
4. A result of translation or telephone error where two parties cannot directly interact in a pre-ordained medium.

In my experience the first 3 make up the majority of scenarios where miscommunication occurs. My frustration stems from people that clearly exhibit number 2 and 3. I would offer to my reader (you), that clear communication can happen in every situation, and that miscommunication can always be avoided.

Here is the kicker. Will miscommunication always be avoided? Nope. But the potential is there! In my limited but intense years in this earth, I have found the following principals to be almost universally helpful

1  1)  Clear Communication is always slow. The first response that comes to your mind is always the wrong one (look up the wonderful book Verbal Judo). Think before you speak. The other person can wait, and most likely they will appreciate your response more.  

2 2)    Always always assume that you are the more mature communicator in the conversation. Never ever expect the other person to carry the maturity of the conversation, and never ever expect them to always react appropriately.

a.     A word on this principal. It seems drastic right? It seems ill-founded. Here is my reasoning. Your perception and expectations of reality are what determine your actions. Thus, if you stick all the agency of the situation on yourself, you cannot be disappointed when things go awry, because you are prepared for it. Let me also say, that this viewpoint does not exclude you form trusting your communication partner, or for that matter having faith in their communication abilities.

b.     In Krav Maga, and other martial arts, students are taught to go into a fight expecting to bleed. They are taught to expect to see their own blood, to feel pain, and to hurt. When their nose gets broken, and the blood runs down their face, they usually don’t freak out as much, because they expected it. The same goes for communication. You do not want miscommunication to happen, but rather, you are ready to face it, and turn it into clear communication when it does invade a important conversation

3 3)    There is almost never a reason to rise above a calm conversational tone.

a.     Disagree all you want, but a stern voice is only helpful in situations of parental authority, or high stakes, high-octane environments. In a disagreement between two parties, a raised voice can be the first step to ultimate communicative perdition. Why? Because its sets a standard. If you do it once, you are bound to do it again.

4 4)    Say “I feel” and “I think” as much as possible. Usually in a relationally tense conversation, accusations fly. Remember that accusations are the speakers “interpretation” of reality and do not actually reflect reality. Let the other person know, “ this is how I perceive your actions” so that they can diagnose the problem, and let you know where the disconnect is. Also, if you frame your accusation, “I feel like your ignoring me” the truth is more likely to come out, than if you accuse them, “You’re ignoring me!” One allows for truth, the other sets a party on the defensive.

5 5)    Avoid negative infinitives. In fact, avoid pendulums and infinitives all together. Always and never are the worst words someone can infuse into a conversation. The communication of pendulum emotions in general are just bad all the way around ( suck it, INFJ’s). Why do I say this? Because reality is never a one sided pendulum, despite you feeling that it is. Validation of a unrealistic feeling is counter productive to the conversation, and the conflict as a whole. You need to discard all false perception and search for the truth of the matter, which generally is in the middle.

6 6)    Listen. Listening skills allow you to think about what you want to say next. Listen when you don’t want to, and listen especially when your really angry Why? Because it allows you to calm down, and it allows the other person to feel like you want to know more about their side (regardless of whether that is true or not). As a question, and let them keep talking. Endevour to find out why they did what they did, and what you can do to help. The first thing that comes to your mind to say is always the wrong thing (Credit: Verbal Judo by George J.Thompson). Read that last sentence again. It is 100% true. Take a moment and listen to the other communicator in the discussion, calm down, and think about what you want to say next. Try to sympathize or empathize with what they are saying, and it will repay you in spades.

7 7)    To shut down is to shoot yourself and all future hopes of reconciliation. I know that creeping feeling that can happen, before all of the sudden you start answering in as few words as possible. Not everyone has this problem, but some of us do.

a.     If you are the person that normally shuts down to avoid conflict or attack, realie that all you are doing is kicking the can down the road. This same conversation will come up again and again until you explode or shut down, and ruin a friendship in the process. When you next get that feeling like you are being antagonized and you want it to stop, instead of shutting down, do one of the following

                                               i.     Tell the other person, “Hey, I’m not feeling like I can finish this conversation in a good way, but I want too, do you mind if we take a short break and come back to it?”

                                             ii.     Tell the other person you are about to shut down, take a deep breath, and then let them know why you are feeling this way.

                                            iii.     If you are brave enough, just continue to talk, but don’t shut down, and let the other person know how you are feeling.

The blogosphere, tumblr, reddit, et al. are great examples of the straw man culture. We misrepresent our opponents in order to make ourselves look great. This however is the worst form of intentional miscommunication because it fosters anger, hate, and frustration that leads to hostile words. A sound byte culture is a culture destined for miscommunication and failure. ( lol ok that was a big claim)

Clear communication is a choice. It is a choice to try to do better in every conversation of every day of every week. There is nothing stopping clear communication from happening, and even though you feel like you are surrounded ( as Chesty Puller was), there is no excuse for clear and prudent communication to be absent. 

Also - that picture that Emily posted of me in the previous post is insanely outdated and I look really young (lol). I tried to edit it but couldn't for some reason. Believe it or not, I am much older and more unattractive than that. 

Also for those of you who got my title reference - call me and we can get married soon. 

Your resident communication wanderer, 

Thaddeus Tague