|
Strawman describes a ideal Libertarian option for existence on the planet in the following terms: "You have total control of your own life, and also total responsibility for it - and your children too. If you make poor decisions the results may be catastrophic, and you will have no one to blame but yourself." Unfortunately, while it is indeed possible to assign people total responsibility for adverse events that may befall them, it is not possible for them to have "total control"* - or even, arguably, significant control - in relation to many events. Firstly, we are endowed with a range of genetic characteristics that are beyond our control to determine. Such characteristics - latent intelligence, health, athletic prowess, aesthetic qualities etc - are reasonably randomly distributed throughout the society. In any case, all humans - even the intellectually fitest of us - suffer from cognitive limitations that make us imperfect calculators. We can exercise choice, but that is not the same thing as having control. (Further, for Strawman's benefit, while parents can choose to have children, children cannot choose their parents). Second, after birth we are subject to a range of socialising influences - from parents, peer groups, the media, persuasive advertising, social norms and so on - that consciously or subconsciously affect our individual beliefs, ethics and life chances. Third, what befalls us in the world is dependent not only on our own choices but also those of others: head-on car accidents, for example. While we can seek to minimise or optimise risks, we can not exercise total control over them. All these problems mean that it is impossible for any one person - even Strawman, I regret to have to inform him - to have total control over their own life. So, even if Strawman's second option sounded nice in theory, it is irrelevant to the real world choices that face us. For the same reasons, I submit that Strawman's notion that people who have poor choices have "no one to blame other than [themselves]" is just another example of the simplistic nostrums of Libertarianism. Richard Smart ____
* I know some Libertarians like to distinguish between "control" and "influence", suggesting that the former involves some level of actual or potential violence of coercion over the party being controlled. However, the first entry for control at dictionary.com is "To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct" and none of the other meanings cited have a violence or coercion requirement. I conclude from the definitions listed that control is, in terms of the present context, essentially a strong form or influence.
| 
