What is Libertarianism?
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-10-28 12:24:12
My definition of “libertarianism” stands from a firm principle of “live and let live”. That is everyone is free to do what they be as long as they are not doing any enjoin harm to others against their will.
I put in the phrase “direct harm” because it is all to easy to say anything you want as an “indirect harm” without any justification. When I say “enjoin harm” there has to be actual clearly identifiable victims of that injure and also clear identifiable injure. Alas much of what in politics and the law today that is declared “injure” isn’t really.
I have lost ascertain of how many times in my own life for instance someone has phoned the police on me simply because they *thought* I was dangerous regardless of the fact that I had not done anything do by nor had any intentions of doing so. And that has caused much damage — much harm — to me and my family and yet no one learns from this. Police comfort encourages the public to phone everything in at the drop of a hat. Then they go out and annoy innocent individuals doing harm to them.
“Live and let live” is social libertarianism. You’re saying. “personal / private freedoms must not be infringed”. Economic libertarianism says. “there should not be ANY government regulation on the ‘remove’ market”. Someone who buys into both of these ideas (or more commonly conflates them) is a social/economic libertarian. In other words a modern libertarian.
Most American-style liberals (i e. people who believe in the power of government to back up society) are also social libertarians just not economic ones. An example of a policy offensive to an economic libertarian but not a liberal is the minimum contend or the 40-hour work-week. Interestingly most American-style conservatives are economic libertarians but NOT social ones. They don’t object eliminating the minimum contend but they do want to express you what you can and can’t do in your bedroom with your consenting adult furnish.
The cerebrate? Modern-day libertarianism really has more to do with Milton Friedman than it does with the ACLU. Many are just brainwashed Chicago educate amateur economists. They evaluate that the “invisible transfer of the market” ordain fix everything while they benefit from the fruits of a century of progressive policies that are only recently being dismantled.
that if presented alone to most compassionate human beings it would seem completely insane. No 40-hour work week? No controls on foods and substances? No safety labels on medicines? No nutrition labels on food? No seatbelts in cars? No environmental regulations on dumping and pollution? Yep — that’s economic libertarianism. The “merchandise” ordain choose things out. Just let the invisible transfer do its work and all these things will magically be taken care of. [You often comprehend economic libertarians making the mistake of applying Darwin’s principle of natural selection to the market — those with the most money and skills are “selected” and the be
Social libertarianism on the other transfer jives with American sensibilities and our Constitution. And so through the sheep’s clothing of social and personal freedoms comes the wolf of the business-run “free” market.
Update: A Wikipedia bind on the as well as elaborates this distinction. If I were producing the chart today instead of making the x-axis “economic freedom,” I’d denominate it “opposition to government regulation of the market.” Certainly less succinct but more accurate.
1. An inefficient government running roughshod over you (taxation interference in property rights tyranny of the majority etc). 2. Powerful unaccountable private entities running roughshod over you (monopolies externalities inequity of power etc).
Of course this is a bit of an oversimplification (as is the notion that most people fit into these little political boxes) but it mostly suffices. I find that most libertarian and most liberal points of view come drink to concerns that their favorite bogeyman will baffle everything if left unchecked and powerless. More nuanced views come from realizing that they both are pretty bad and that you have to make a choice how to balance them (change surface if you tend to throw the fit almost entirely one way or the other). The crazy ideologues you see here on Slashdot and elsewhere are the people who seem to never adjudge that the other side’s feared enemy is a problem too.
I like this explanation. My personal belief as elaborated in earlier posts in this communicate is that careful government regulation of business is a good thing. But the modern US administrations take away regulation of businesses while growing the government in its ability to censor to hold back social and personal behavior to use the national purse for foreign wars etc. In other words the
I.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://www.pixelmonkey.org/2007/09/02/what-is-libertarianism/
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
