All this talk about Gunner's philosophical predicament and libertarian philosophy (and I don't know what Gunner has actually said about it, because I've plonked him, but it doesn't matter, we're really talking about the situation, not about him) has led me to finish a little book I started reading a couple of years ago, where I found this interesting thought.
The book is _What It Means To Be A Libertarian_, by Charles Murray, former Harvard prof, current American Enterprise Institute Fellow, co-author of _The Bell Curve_, and an all-around anti-socialist, pro-liberty guy. My apologies to Mr. Murray for this lengthy quote, which pushes the definition of "fair use," but I'll compensate by recommending the book highly and will further say that anyone who thinks himself a libertarian, or a Libertarian, and who hasn't read this brief book, probably doesn't know what he's talking about:
"The first step for libertarians is to acknowledge, freely and without reservation, the nobility of the goal [ending poverty]. It is distressing when want exists amid plenty, and humans have a moral obligation to do what they can. Or as one wise man put it, "He is certainly not a good citizen who does not wish to promote, by every means in his power, the welfare of the whole society of his fellow citizens." That is Adam Smith talking, the apostle of laissez-faire. This injunction applies not merely to poverty but to all the human predicaments that arise from the randomness of life and lead us to say, "There but for the grace of God go I" To some extent life is indeed a lottery, just as the social democrats insist.
"That chance plays a large role in life is not news, but it needs to be emphasized because the political debate has tended to push libertarians into unnecessarily extreme positions. The idea that we are our brothers' keepers has been used so flabbily, for so many destructive schemes, that one has a strong impulse to say, "The hell I am." But the Bible cannot be held responsible for its misuse by twentieth-century politicians, and the whining of some social democrats that no one is responsible for his fate should not provoke libertarians into saying that anyone can stand on his own two feet if he has a little gumption. We all need a little help from our friends, and some of us need a great deal. What becomes of those who are helpless, or luckless, or perhaps simply feckless, must deeply concern any human being worthy of the name. So say all of the world's great religious traditions. So say the great thinkers in the classical liberal tradition. So say most of their followers, including me."
Now, Mr. Murray follows with this line:
"Should government be the instrument for discharging this obligation?"
...to which the answer is, of course, no. But the point above is the relevant one. Murray identifies himself as a Classical Liberal, which is slightly different from a libertarian in important ways, but he, like Milton Friedman, finds it more accurate to call himself a "libertarian" because of what "liberal" now implies.
This should be pasted on the wall of those fat, rich geeks, like Tim May, who came by their wealth too fast, without the acquired sense of what it means to be wealthy in a democratic society, and who are, with money in their pockets and no idea what noblesse oblige means, paranoid that everyone is trying to take it away from them. If he lived in the Northeast instead of California, he might have a better sense of what "rich white trash" means, and how accurately it applies to him.
Chew on that one.