JT wrote:Moon-Crane wrote:They're all as bad as each other. i'm probably consider myself as an anarchist at heart (in its true sense) as i believe the vast majority of people could manage perfectly well, and prosper, with self rule. However, it doesn't quite sit with my view that there needs to be government control over corporate power. Nearly all models seem good in theory, but don't take into account many external factors, and can't just be started in a vacuum.
Oh by the way, happy 4th of July - American Independence day. It sounds like maybe you could be pigeon-holed as a Libertarian. Libertarians are in some ways further right than I am. For example, I do think there needs to be some government control over corporate power. It's just that I think the Liberals go way to far - they too often seem to be in opposition to the economic institution itself. Libertarians and Republicans/Conservatives/Right-wingers are political allies here in the States. But to many right-wingers, Libertarianism strikes us as being too unrealisitic - we sometimes equate their governmental philosophy with that of our pre-constitutional Articles of Confederation. Too weak to properly cohere a nation. And although I believe in the individual, I don't think we could prosper with self rule.
Fair points. I think there are flaws in the Libertarian area - but i do like their philosophy in general. I posted a link somewhere back to the guys in the running for leading the Libertarian Party, but i don't really know much of their backgrounds in any great depth.
I don't really believe we could live by pure self rule - i just think it's a nice aim for individuals to live their personal lives by as best they can, i suppose. We're corrupted by a lot of historical baggage (and maybe even natural instinct) for it ever to be a viable reality to run society.
The fact there is a Libertarian party at all, no matter how minor, is another thing for America to be proud of. I can't point to anything similar in the UK. The small parties are generally more socialist, apart from the nationalists, at least, but i don't think any run on any of the clearly laid out Libertarian policies i see Stateside.
I guess the 'New Labour' of the 90s struck a cord because they seemed to embrace various business/economic models (said to be more right-wing than the Conservatives at the time) while maintaining a feeling of being for the 'every day people' (hey, i said it was the 90s - prospering times
) - but hardly Libertarian by a long shot - and now proving to be just as meddling if not more so than they ever were.
One thing I do like about Libertarians views is that although they believe that individuals should have great freedom in their choices of behaviour (drugs, etc.), they also believe, as do other right-wingers, that if as a consequence of these choices they become non-competitive in society, they should not look to government to bale them out, or 'set things right'.
Well i can't argue with that. There are definitely too many laws in the UK, more concerned about meddling in personal lifestyle choices than looking at the bigger picture. I see little need for deciding what two consenting people can do with each other, or for possession of anything to be illegal, for example. I'm sure the intent/reason of having something in your possession can be circled to a proper crime, if necessary. So, if you want to reduce drug crime - i'd make all drugs legal, and concentrate on any criminal consequences that sometimes occur when people don't handle the drugs - like violence, theft, etc - they're crimes anyway. The majority of currently criminalised people would be no bother - while the current dicks will still be picked up for the antisocial things they do.
Anyway, straying off track
Keep popping back, JT.