|
Actually it is a slightly modified
"liberal assumption," namely that if you grant freedom to people
they will almost always use it to further what they think is their
own best interest. It is not necessarily best for everyone or best
for even their closest friends, but best for themselves. This is,
of course, selfishness of the first order.
They may be persuaded by others into pursuing a less optimal path for their own interests by others who are in turn trying to reach their own best interests. Many realize that this is rank selfishness, but they are loathe to fix it through government intervention because that introduces a scapegoat for any bad outcome, namely the government intervention. It is no longer their mistake, the government stepped in and ruined everything for them (and due to the size of government today, you hear a LOT of that from libertarians-and the bigger the government, the more likely they are right). They would rather leave the responsibility in the lap of the individual who made the mess in the first place by making wrong choices in the furtherance of their self interest. I have seen on several different law blogs that one probably commits somewhere between 3 to 10 felonies a day unknowingly due to the volume of the laws and regulations. Someone wrote a book on 3. http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 So even the praised government laws and regulations that are supposed to regulate freedom may regulate freedom so much that they actually become as "immoral" as the "immoral" freedom they are trying to regulate. Fallen people are not ONLY Libertarians, they are everybody, including the lawmakers (today, especially the lawmakers). So I don't entirely agree with the idea that a law is always a moral good tempering "immoral" freedom. I don't see the "moral good" in forcing the purchase of health insurance. These morons cannot keep military and intelligence secrets, but your medical privacy is assured??? YEAH, RIGHT. If you believe that, I have a bridge in the Sahara to sell you. If the government adds incentives or penalties that changes the calculation on what is in one's best interest. Fines for certain actions can really focus one's attention. So can being paid for certain actions (or inaction, in the case of welfare). What should be the fine for breaking arbitrary speed limits? We have some roads in Texas with speed limits of 85. Why do some larger and wider roads have speed limits that are less? What would be a "good" speed limit on a highway of 65 miles going through the King Ranch? You have 65 miles of, literally, cattle, grass, and oil pumps. You could do more than 85 and not hurt a soul. Yet you will get a ticket and pay a fine for doing more than 75. There's not much morality involved here, if any at all. Selfish actions can actually have good results. It is true that none of this is postulated with any moral structure. It is kind of like morality is being ignored, but it does not directly negate Christianity. The problem at some point is based upon the Libertarian conception of individual liberty as being the highest moral good. This goes back before Rand to at least the Jeffersonian Declaration of Independence's "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Christianity does not define the highest moral good as individual liberty. I don't either, but it is darned close. To me, this would be the basic point of any conflict. The paradigms are not the same. While there is some Biblical support for freedom of choice in most matters (liberty-read Galatians), that is not the "be all" or "end all" of Christianity. And of course, extremely strict Calvinism denies that altogether with everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, decreed by God from eternity past. Which can ironically lead some folks to claim that they were predestined to be Libertarian. :-) Believe it or not, there are some days that I wonder about the morality of conservatism as well. I haven't really answered the last question. I would like to think that it would look like me, but that's probably too self-aggrandizing. I would like a more Christian informed Libertarianism. I would also like a more truly conservative Republican Party. Contrary to the media reports, the "wild-eyed crazies" on the right do not have control of the party. Speaker Boehner (sp? Speaker Bonehead?) has demoted some of the more conservative house members from the committees that they were on. This will have an impact on my future votes for Republican candidates. The Stupid Party is pushing me towards full blown Libertarianism. The Evil Party doesn't even get consideration. The Satan party (Greens) are anathema. Doesn't leave much, now does it?? David "When a thing defies physical law, there's
usually politics involved."--P. J. O’Rourke
On 12/5/2012 1:47 PM, [email protected] wrote:
-- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org |
Title: ORourke1 Signature
- [RC] Questions for Libertarians BILROJ
- Re: [RC] Questions for Libertarians Dr. Ernie Prabhakar
- Re: [RC] Questions for Libertarians David R. Block
- Re: [RC] Questions for Libertarians David R. Block
- Re: [RC] Questions for Libertarians David R. Block
