A broader libertarian vision -- Social comfort

In many ways libertarianism is best suited as a loose organization of individual ideas and action in the private sector replacing the government's role as agents of social change -- a loose organization guided by principles based on freedom and individual rights. Libertarian-spirited individuals working between the public and private spheres to transition government-run social programs to private associations could create a beneficial social change that would pay huge dividends to society in general.

One reason government social programs are so needed and depended on is that they provide peace of mind in knowing there is some place to turn to when the chips are down and options have run out. The problem with government run programs, though, is the political and bureacratic nature of the programs, the dependency they create and the tendency to exist for the sake of existence, whether they are effective or not -- most often as power bases for politicians. The only need for libertarian political involvement would be to create change in government mindsets that would allow the transition of social programs from public to private -- this would be the most difficult task. But if people are convinced this is the right way to the future and a greater standard of living, then politicians might want to be positioned as proponents and supporters of the change -- and those politicians fighting the change may appear like reactionaries who want to preserve a failed system of unhealthy dependence for selfish, political reasons.

It will require a combination of political activism and public support. One reality that might help convince both is the growing cost of social programs and the prospect of higher and higher taxes to support programs that aren't providing a very good return on investment -- but cost analysis and ROI alone won't generate the change -- people will need to feel comfortable that private associations are true safety netss and honest agents of assistance. Convincing people of the shift from dependence to responsibility and success will appeal to most who know in their heart of hearts that unhealthy dependence kills the human spirit -- and only hardcore dependents will fight it, but even they will likely grudgingly accept it if it's presented honestly. I have to believe that the vast majority want to do better if they have the opportunity and assistance.

The private associations replacing government programs could provide the same comfort of mind while eliminating the political angle and eliminating unhealthy dependence -- thereby pushing people toward self-sufficiency, responsibility and, ultimately, success in making their own way. Although it wouldn't be the purpose, the effect would be creation of self-esteem and confidence for those who are temporarily lost in a sometimes hard and confusing world.

Why would the private sector want to support these associations? Because everyone will be better off if welfare dependency is transformed to active productivity, if more people are mentally healthy, if more people learn the basics needed to survive in today's market place and if there is less unemployment. Plus the spirit of communtity will be strengthened giving people in communities a better understanding of social problems -- and with more participation in the solutions the more likely creative ideas will emerge.

I realize this is a tall order, but government will soon buckle under the weight of their ineffective, politically shackled and expensive efforts, making it easier to propose and implement private solutions -- if there is a transition period that will remove the fear of such an abrupt and untested change. I think now is the time to revisit all the government programs to determine how to best accomplish their goals. It's one thing to criticize government efforts, it's another to develop private solutions to the problem and end the practice of dumping the problems on government. Paying for these programs should be voluntary -- and if they are managed right, they should pay for themselves and actually benefit society -- thus, we could end the wasteful practice of throwing money in a hole and begin the private practice of generating something positive.

With all the technological changes and the new demands this creates there should be a place at all levels for people willing to put forth the effort to learn new skills. But what about those who can't work and can't help themselves, or those with low capabilites?

More later.