In his essay "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty," the irrepressible Murray Rothbard wrote: “For the Libertarian, the main task of the present epoch is to cast off his needless and debilitating pessimism, to set his sights on long-run victory and to set out on the road to its attainment . . . . [L]et him proceed in the spirit of radical long-run optimism.”

Like most libertarians these days, I've been debating pessimism versus optimism. My context is quite a bit different than most, however. In a sense, I have removed myself from 'the movement' proper because I think much of it is destructive of the very liberty it claims to champion. For example, activists who pour their energy and money into the political ambitions of Ron Paul; those who believe the problem with government is that the wrong master is at the helm. Another example... those institutes that exist to convert young minds to go on and become a new generation of academics living off the government teat and working within 'the system' so seamlessly that I honestly can't tell most of them from the system itself. What an accomplishment: the creation of more tax consumers who play the academia game well.

The real radicalism, it seems to me, resides in people who are trying to empower individuals (including themselves) e.g. through protecting their rights (to own a gun, to homeschool children, etc.) or by teaching the skills that enable independence. The real radicals are constructing alternatives to working with or in a corrupt system that preys on human dignity and freedom.

What does this have to do with the 'pessimism versus optimism' question with which I began? Depending on where you focus, you can land on either side of the debate. God knows, I've fence hopped. I finally decided that it doesn't matter. Pessimism, optimism...it just doesn't make any difference to how I act and who I am. It would be nice to have an impact on the world but the matter is out of my control. All I control is myself and those things in my immediate sphere. Moreover, my writing and research has never been fundamentally motivated by trying to influence others. I write because ideas interest me; I spent years researching Benjamin Tucker because his approach and literary style ignited my imagination. If I die without influencing anyone, I won't regret following where my mind led any more than I regret following my heart in matters of romance. Having said this, it would be nice to make an impact on the world...and I suppose this is where the question of pessimism versus optimism arises.

So...the case for pessimism: I cannot see how the currect economic crisis can get anything but much worse. There are at least ponzi schemes poised to cause as much devastation as the mortgage disaster. They are: the American dollar, social security and private pension funds. Arguably, medicare as well. When the economy plunges into a real depression, politics will becomes a deck of wild cards played by the desperate, the fearful and those who wish to profit. Massive government intervention will only deepen and extend the depression, perhaps for years. As average people become enraged, there will tax and other revolts -- whether violent or just in the form of widespread non-compliance. The government will respond by cracking down, which is all it knows to do in the face of open defiance. On a non-governmental level, I expect quite a few of the 'niceties' of society will break down -- e.g. a rise in crime, especially against property.

So...the case for optimism: as bad as things are, they have been worse and liberty has survived. A quotation has haunted me for many years, inspring a feeling of sharp melancholy whenever I think of it. In 1914, Lord Edward Grey said of World War I, "the lights are going out across Europe. We shall not see them again for a long time." [In some versions, the quote ends "We shall not see them again in our lifetime."] And, yet, freedom recovered from the convulsing insanity of world war...as it will recover again. I believe this is inevitable because liberty is not an institution but an urge within man, and human nature will not change.

So...the case for opting out of the debate: my optimism rests on matters that are non-political and more within my control; my relationship with those for whom I care, my health, my independence, my farm... As the world goes to hell, these aspects of life are doing well, largely because of my decisions over the last several years; for example, the decision to live frugally and, so, be out of debt. But mostly, I opt out of internally debating "how should I feel?" because I am tired to death of caring deeply about matters over which I have no control. It is a waste of time, a waste of life and it quickly becomes boring. It may be the case that I cannot help caring but I can decide not to dwell upon miserable matters over which I have no influence.

Taking an emotional vacation is not that easy, of course, because the state of the world impacts those for whom I care; they may lose jobs, miss payments, become ill because of how costly it is to maintain health, etc. If so, well, then I'll deal with whatever comes up whenever it does. I guess I've concluded that the best way to make sure liberty recovers this time around is for me to stay healthy, keep writing, stay standing upright and to otherwise go about the business of living. That way, when liberty is ready to return, I'll be here to embrace and nudge it along.