The following is a summative paraphrasing, as seen from my perspective, of several conversations I've recently had with one of my closest friends - a devout Socialist AND a Ron Paul supporter.
So you just KNOW it's going to be interesting.
People tend to stereotype political views into one of (more or less) two categories: Big Government and Small Government. Typically, it's fairly simple to gauge which of those categories a person falls under if you know a priori how that person feels about certain issues: Big Government supporters tend to like wide-reaching social programs, higher taxes, and a government-mandated equal distribution of wealth, while Small Government supporters are quite the opposite.
So if a man told you that his ideal mode of living was in a socialist commune, it wouldn't be too difficult to determine which category to place him in. Right?
Wrong.
You see, there are two types of 'socialism'. There is the first kind, with which we are all familiar: militaristic, government-mandated Socialism that requires an enormous monstrosity of a government and infringements upon personal liberty the likes of which have seldom been seen on this planet. Other terms which would correctly describe this form of government include Communist, Maoist, Stalinist, Bolshevik, National Socialist (Nazi), etc. When people rightly tell you that Socialism is bad, this is what they are referring to.
But there is another kind of socialism which, though it is not my personal flavor of government by a long shot, I cannot in good conscience condemn. This form of socialism is relatively unknown, due to it's low-key and unimposing nature. It is known more correctly as anarcho-socialism, mutualism, or that thing Proudhon was talking about.
In small-s socialism, there is no government mandate, no enforcement. Nor is there any infringement upon personal liberty. Participants freely elect to form a community in which their resources and talents are shared among those they care about. They are free to continue in this way indefinitely, and if they change their minds, they leave. It strikes me more as a familial support structure than a form of government.
If you have ever even skimmed the titles of our posts here, you know that this way of living is not our particular brand of tea. However, if a group of tight-knit individuals wants to form together in this fashion, it's no skin off of my back. There's certainly no reason that people can't form such a community, right?
Unless such communities are immediately branded as potential cults, or extremist factions. Unless they and their members are placed on FBI surveillance indefinitely. Unless they are dismantled at the first sign of wrongdoing by any member of the group.
This is why my friend, the socialist, is voting for Ron Paul - because Big Government is the enemy of small-s socialism. In a truly free society, everyone is assumed to have taken responsibility for their own lives. They are free to do whatever they want, so long as their actions don't adversely affect the freedom and livelihood of those around them. Alternative modes of living are not regarded with bureaucratic suspicion and displeasure; they are in fact not regarded at all. They are simply free from restriction, as is any free and responsible mode of living.
I found this point of view refreshing and fascinating - I had never dreamed of the day when socialists benefited from libertarian policies. I guess I just wasn't thinking in those terms at all.
If you can think of any other counterintuitive benefits of a libertarian society, leave us a comment below.
No comments:
Post a Comment