Edward Snowden. He's the man who recently leaked the information about the NSA listening in on American citizens' phone calls. He did so, he says, in defense of the Constitution; he believes that what the NSA was doing is illegal, and he sees himself as a sort of whistleblower for the federal government.
As expected, the government wasn't as understanding. He's been condemned largely by both democrats and republicans, though he has been praised by some. Republican senator with libertarian sensibilities, Rand Paul of Kentucky, reportedly agrees with Snowden's decision. No surprise there, either.
Snowden's dodging of the American justice system has shown the true hypocrisy of libertarianism. They're all for defending the Constitution until they can benefit from the opposite. If Snowden is trying to defend the Constitution, there's no denying that he should be adhering to the legal system that the same document created. Even if he wanted to argue that a charge of espionage by the federal government is virtually impossible to win, there is precedent to say otherwise; the Pentagon Papers actually proves to be a great comparison.
Snowden, in his libertarian logic, has sought refuge within nations that are by no means breeding grounds for liberty. He's been in Communist China and he's been in discussion with Communist Cuba as well as Russia, seeking asylum from an American justice system that has every right to charge him for espionage.
The childish libertarian philosophy extends beyond Snowden, however. I am still amazed that at this day and age libertarian economics exists. Are we truly to believe that if libertarians are okay with Snowden avoiding justice, that they'd be okay with their own "screw the poor" attitude if they were any less fortunate? This may sound somewhat trivial but I argue that it is not; libertarianism has far too many holes in it to be a growing political movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment