RE: What a Libertarian Society Would Look Like
It's interesting to hear from all of the libertarians/anarchists on here. Of course the idea of less government involvement (I am absolutely not a socialist) is very attractive to me, especially as things are now, but particularly as a young woman (who has read and been horrified by Lord of the Flies), the idea of no overarching authority is distressing, as I am inherently weaker and an obvious loser in a society like that. There are hierarchies no matter what. It's our animal nature. As humans, however, we can choose our hierarchies to some degree, in a rational, distinctly human manner--however imperfect this often is--rather than leave it to the animal instincts and pure brute strength--whether that's physical, or, in this day and age, in the form of tech knowledge and wealth.
But there is much to be said; in the end, I think a lot of people that propose so-called anarchy come quite close in their idea of it to just very small, efficient, barely-involved government. You might be very interested in a Catholic social principle discussed at length--the principle of sudsidiarity. It sounds like what you're talking about, and it's the perennial vision of the Church for a healthy government: in essence, the people closest to the problem at hand are the ones best equipped to deal with it; smallest possible government--exactly like your party example.
Anyway: this isn't a treatise, but just felt worthwhile to say.
I know you're a reader. I will try to find which document it is and send on the title to you. It's 100 years old.
Libertarians don't believe in no authority -- just in no governmental authority. I'm not quite sure there has to be a hierarchy, per se, but I certainly do believe in an orderly society, which presupposes certain rules or "agreements" that all members share. There can even be a private police and a private "government," as long as all participation in it is voluntary -- meaning no forced taxes, etc.
Subsidiarity sounds quite appealing to me as an idea, as I certainly believe that problems should be solved locally, not by some centralized, out-of-touch group of "experts."
Many libertarians are also Christians (and vice-versa ;)), by the way, including Tolkein, C. S. Lewis, and Ron Paul, for instance. I personally welcome many Judeo-Christian values (such as not stealing, etc.), though I lament the fact that so many Christians have taken Christ's ideas about loving others to mean they have to support laws that increase revenues for social programs!
Cool. lol
Not enough brain power to fully respond in an adequate way right now, but this is interesting to think of--and comforting! Everyone here is always touting anarchy and I'm like.. uhhhh. Do you really think with power you would be all that more virtuous than what we have? Not all that likely. Many people who think they are arguing for anarchy are actually just arguing for a different form of power structure.
Classical liberalism, the first name you gave it, is actually appealing from this expansion you gave. My guess is that subsidiarity is nearly identical to that.
And yes--ugh to the social programs, and the poor malformation in many Christian circles. Generosity, a keystone to a properly lived Christianity, is necessarily voluntary, otherwise it isn't generosity. When 1/2 your income is taxed, it's hard to even feel you have the chance to be generous! And thus you're robbed of an incredible, joy-giving, relationship-building virtue.
My response requires nuance, but the essence of it is that people are always better left to take care of themselves where possible, and to be directly supported by people who know and love them in some capacity where not, as you say, I think? I have been in that latter position myself--needing to be carried through some very difficult periods. But I somehow always knew in my gut it wasn't the right thing to seek out government aid.
So tired. But basically agree, I think.
Many Christians are very confused without good rational and intellectual formation alongside a lived faith, which flounders in the face of ideology because it doesn't have arguments with which to respond.
You'd make a good Catholic, Brent :). Night!
It's a more than adequate response, Kay, and I appreciate your taking the effort to digest the information and reply thoughtfully.
Interestingly, one of the most common pro-government arguments is that people cannot be trusted to take care of themselves. The come-back, of course, is "Why should we give some people power to govern others, then?"
I totally agree with you that forced generosity is not generosity. It reminds me of Milton in his "Treatise on Education," in which he lays out the basic idea that morality cannot exist in a vacuum, meaning God gave us the ability to make bad decisions because, if we had no choice, doing the right thing would no longer be a virtue.
I guess Lewis also discussed this in "The Problem of Evil":
Anyways, "people are always better left to take care of themselves where possible, and to be directly supported by people who know and love them in some capacity where not" sums it up well!
Talk to you soon!