Actually, I'm not laughing at all-- I'm delighted to hear the thoughts of someone looking ahead in their life and planning as well as one can how to deal with potential problems. The way I see it, libertarianism is a perfectly rational philosophy, which would work perfectly if man were a perfectly rational animal-- but of course, he isn't. The aspect of it that most appealed to me when I was younger was the emphasis on freedom, making one's own judgments, and self-reliance. Like many young people today, my attitude was, "It's my life, and if I am hurting myself (which I never thought I was), well, that's my right." The same argument can be carried to an extreme and used to justify suicide. The biggest problem with that attitude, which many of us completely deride and discard until we become parents (or contemplate doing so) is that none of us was raised in the wilds by wolves. Many, many people-- parents, other family members, youth group leaders, dedicated teachers, and friends make enormous investments of time, energy and love in all of us. Without those investments, although we are loathe to admit it, most of us would be nothing. If you want a graphic and thought-provoking demonstration of how we are inextricably tied to one another, just attend the funeral of a young person, especially one who died by their own hand.
Libertarianism also seems to me to provide nothing to tide one over when rationality fails, and we face the occasional emotional pits of life. Viktor E. Frankl writes movingly of what really sustains us in his book "Man's Search for Meaning", which draws extensively on his experience in a Nazi concentration camp. Frankl found that those who survived lived for something larger than themselves-- whether for God, or for a family member, or for a passion for music, or science or some other intellectual endeavor. The self simply wasn't enough to sustain them-- they had to believe that there was something larger and more valuable than themselves that they needed to serve. In my own, much lesser trial with borderline depression, I can say that I believe Frankl is right.
No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main.... Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in Mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
-- John Donne (1572-1631)
Your complaint that libertarianism didn't provide you something to tide you over when rationalism fails, sounds like the libertarianism you were seeking was a church, and when it didn't live up to the full church role you had hoped for, you jumped out and into something else that provided for that need. Most libertarians have many different things going for them in their lives, that they can draw upon when they "face the occasional emotional pits of life." I can't imagine any libertarian looking for that kind of help from the movement, a golf league, chess club, music band, an arts association, or even a baseball team.
I don't know any monks in the Almighty Church of Libertarian Holyness. But if you were a member of that church, actually thinking it could accomplish as much, then your rationality was not very sound to start with. But don't cast the rest of the movement into the utopian dreams you had, which required monk like robots with perfect rationality. This is a movement and philosophy that encourages individuality, and self ownership. The exact opposite of what you have conjured up in your mind.
Libertarianism is an opposite of utopia. Those who don't understand the philosohpy, continually expect us to live up to some utopian ideal, having answers to every imaginable problem under the son. Sorry to repeat the most often quoted libertarian saying; "Utopia is not an option."
The biggest problem with that attitude, which many of us completely deride and discard until we become parents (or contemplate doing so) is that none of us was raised in the wilds by wolves. Many, many people-- parents, other family members, youth group leaders, dedicated teachers, and friends make enormous investments of time, energy and love in all of us
Although libertarianism fosters self-reliance I don't believe that this is what it is based upon. In fact, in raising issue, for example, with how the public schools and the state at large is becoming the new nanny (the "It Takes a Village" mentality), it claims that these functions should be handled by the families. In other words, it stands for individual sovereignty but this is not to say that it is against the family collective; in fact, it is pro-family in the sense that it takes the parenting away from government.
....those who survived lived for something larger than themselves-- whether for God, or for a family member, or for a passion for music, or science or some other intellectual endeavor. The self simply wasn't enough to sustain them-- they had to believe that there was something larger and more valuable than themselves that they needed to serve
Well said, but I don't see how this reliance on others is anti-libertarian. Again, I think you're mistakenly representing it as a philosophy of "me, me, me" when it's really about free choice. As a Christian and a libertarian I see no incompatibilies between the two, since God gave us free choice. It's when the reliance on others is fostered through state control that libertarians object.
A common response to my point of view expressed here is "What of those who can't raise their own children?" Yes, there's always a what if. What to do about those who can't afford privatized education - they're going to rely on charity?
I think what they mean, and pardon my being blunt, is that "white trash" parents, for example, don't love their children enough to raise them properly. I quote Vin Suprynovich here, "That these children should be entrusted to the care and upbringing of these parents who have borne them was decided before you came into the picture. If in your insufferable smugness you believe you have a superior wisdom that allows you to decide from which mothers' breasts the babes in arms may be riped away.....you'd better look up what happens to those who think their plans are better than the Creator's" (referring to Hitler and the like).
I think what Vin is saying here was summed up by jackbob in another post - there is no utopia, and libertarianism should not be interpreted as proposing a "freedom utopia", although many mistakenly do so. Instead, it's a realization that free choice usually results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, yet there will always be those that abuse freedom, and those that seem to get screwed by something we could change. But there are really only two options - state control in the name of making things better, whereby conditions are worsened for the greatest number of people, or self-government, which, far from perfect, results in the best possible outcome.