| [ |
mood |
| |
 pensive |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
silence |
] |
I'm very much a libertarian.
It will come as a shock to some to hear me say that, I know, because I've been known to support all kinds of "socialist, commie, pinko" stuff.
Does that seem incongruous to you? It doesn't to me.
Perhaps that warrants explanation. It's really not that complicated.
I'm a complete and total libertarian in regards to personal freedoms.
So long as you are not infringing the liberty of another, you should be free to do as you choose.
Yes. I believe that, but, you know there are always caveats.
I should explain it thus, perhaps:
I am a complete and total libertarian in regards to personal freedoms, but not when it comes to economic matters?
No. That's not it.
I am a complete a total libertarian in regards to personal freedoms, and that means preserving the greatest amount of freedom for the largest number of people, and if that means limiting some people from hording resources, then, well, that's okay with me. And if it means limiting some folks from damaging the environment upon which we all depend for our health, happiness, and, thus liberty, well, you know I'm going to support such limitation.
You know, government always gets this bad rap, and people, today, who call themselves "libertarians" here in the US are all up in arms wanting to limit government in all kinds of ways, so, perhaps my understanding of government is not that same as theirs.
Government is (was intended to be, should be?) simply that which WE (the people) have agreed upon as principles for our mutual benefit and cohabitation.
Call it "rules" if you like but mutually agreed upon rules, and intended not to infringe upon our freedoms, so much, as to preserve the greatest amount of freedom for the greatest number of persons.
That's all.
And if they prohibit me from, say, beating my neighbors with a shovel, it's not so much to take the choice of beating people away from me so much as it is to preserve my neighbors' freedom to not be beaten with a shovel. And if the prohibit me from taking a dumping on your lawn, well, again, that's to preserve your health and happiness.
The thing is, when it comes to economic matters, there's no denying that amassing resources in the hands of a few gives them power over others, which, thus, allows them to then infringe upon the freedoms of those others.
That's where I draw the line.
I shouldn't think that it's all too difficult to understand.
So, we mutually agree upon the means to equalize access to resources, within reason.
That doesn't mean robbing you to give to Fulano, who sits on his butt all day.
Nothing remotely of such nature!
It simply means not allowing Ricardo to gobble up all the resources, by hook or crook, and then demanding that you bow to his wishes in order to acquire what you need, in order to protect your liberty, not infringe on Ricardo's.
We communally, mutually agree to contribute to our community, our society, for the general welfare and benefit, thus allowing the greatest amount of liberty for the largest number of people.
So, if Pete and Percival love each other and wish to marry, they should be afforded that liberty.
It will in no way infringe upon Gary and Gertrude's libery to love each other and marry, or go about worship ancient, mythological Jewish zombies, or whatever.
It won't, in fact, infringe on anybody's freedom.
Let it be.
And, if Hank wants to wear a skirt and lacy drawers, let him! It's not going to harm you.
If Hannah wants to own a rifle and shoot at the range, well, so long as she's not shooting at you, what matter is it to you?
If Lisa and Lou want to film their bedroom adventures and share them with Jen and Jake, who enjoy that, well, who is that hurting? Nobody.
It doesn't mean that you ot I must participate, if we decline, so how can it harm us?
It can't.
It's only when, say, Chester wants to film himself harming children, of course, that we should intervene, or when Frank wants to fondle Filipa, who doesn't wish to be fondled, since, Frank's fondling would infringe upon her freedom to be free of fondling. Filipa's freedom to remain fondle-free is as important as Frank's freedom to fondle. Frank is free to fondle Frieda, perhaps, who enjoys such fondling. But not Filipa who would refrain.
When one member of the community causes harm to another, we must intervene.
When Pete pawns phony pharmaceuticals to the unsuspecting, thus endangering their health, for instance.
Or, Horaces heaves harmful chemical wastes in the forest behind Harry's house and poisons the water supply for everyone. Yes! We must intervene for the greater good!
We must, as a community, society, nation prohibit that.
And, when Larry goes upstream, dams up the river, and demands that every man, woman and child do his bidding or pay his price for a cup of water, well, he is infringing on everyone's liberty.
I don't care if he walked up stream uphill, barefoot, in 90° heat and 10 ft of snow, and built that dam with his own damned hands. He has no right.
And we all know that those who currently have control over the greatest amount of resources did not walk up stream uphill, barefoot, in 90° heat and 10 ft of snow, and build that dam with their own damned hands. They scooped up the land in fraudulent evictions, drove up there in Daddy's limo, and paid some poor hungry fellows an insulting wage to build the damned dam, while failing to provide appropriate safety measures, so that a quarter of said underpaid workforce were injured, and, of course, without access to adequate health care.
That system is NOT preserving the greatest amount of freedom for the largest number of persons.
It's allowing a few people to control resources, and, then, exploit and abuse others, the environment, and, even, the government that was intended to preserve the liberties that these few have stolen from the rest of us.
For the government to preserve our liberties, then it must truly be our government, of/by/for the people, and not owned by wealthy interests.
So.
I am a complete and total libertarian when it comes to personal liberties,
and I recognize the absolute necessity for a mutually agreed upon government, of/by/for the people, to preserve those personal liberties, AND, protect the masses from exploitation by those who amass greater access to and control over resources.
I'm extremely patriotic. I LOVE my country, and believe the democratic principles and liberties upon which our government system were built are of the utmost relevance and importance.
I think the Constitution is an amazing document, intended to preserve the greatest amount of liberty for the largest number of people, and, especially since the framers thereof recognized their own fallibility and left us with the means to amend it, if/when doing so becomes necessary or useful, when our growth as a society demands it, to preserve even greater liberty (such as when abolishing slavery or extending the right to vote to all citizens, etc.)
|
![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
tonybaldwin's journal
amused
artistic
angry