And Now, For Something Else
A confession: I find the belief that gov't ought to be small or minimalistic to be laughable at best, and a naive product of a secure upbringing. When there is no substantial gov't, and every man is for himself, the world is a terrifying, cruel, unforgiving place in which very few thrive and almost everyone suffers. It seems to me, to hold minimalistic gov't as an ideal, one must assume they are one of the better, smarter, more competent people who will get lucky and be able to provide all sustenance, shelter and health care for themselves.
I guess I've read too many history books to conclude, almost instantly, that 99.9% of my flist (including me) would die very swiftly, when placed in such a lassaiz-faire circumstance. Shared resources, managed by a gov't, aren't just a privilege, it's how we survive. Government is not evil. It appalls me to see how many people seem to believe they are better than average and could prosper without the monumental support of organized government.
Yeah, right. Most of us are average; very few of us are Super men. Luckily, it is human nature for us to cooperate for mutual benefit. (This is not philosophy - kinship altruism is demonstrated consistently in higher primates). We naturally gravitate toward government, an organized structure of exchange. Here are some other definitions. Even the smallest communities have governments, if they are but informal cliques.
A small government that is responsible for very little is... not a new concept. It is certainly not an idea invented by Libertarians or any other modern, trendy group. It is exceedingly traditional and history books illustrate very repetitively, that a small group of people, given the intrinsically high level of power engendered through formal organization (a government), will do their best to benefit from that power at the expense of everyone else. A small group will not limit themselves - not by legislation, anyway.
I rather like by the people, for the people, the large government in which many participate, distributing power amongst all who wish it. Unfortunately, if only 25% of the potential voting population exercises their rights, then you get a gov't that represents those 25%, resulting in a schism between the people and their gov't. That apathy, privilege blindness and complacency, are the ironic products of a stable government. The United States has a very open, user-friendly system in place, with built-in hackles to reduce abuses of power, that encourages participation. Unfortunately, that's work, isn't it?
So I might be a democrat who thinks libertarians are arrogant, smug idiots, but the lovely thing is, we live in a nation with a government that encourages these differences in opinion. That is more wonderful than most people realize, even if we do spend all our time squabbling over how to do things best, with our right to squabble.
I guess I've read too many history books to conclude, almost instantly, that 99.9% of my flist (including me) would die very swiftly, when placed in such a lassaiz-faire circumstance. Shared resources, managed by a gov't, aren't just a privilege, it's how we survive. Government is not evil. It appalls me to see how many people seem to believe they are better than average and could prosper without the monumental support of organized government.
Yeah, right. Most of us are average; very few of us are Super men. Luckily, it is human nature for us to cooperate for mutual benefit. (This is not philosophy - kinship altruism is demonstrated consistently in higher primates). We naturally gravitate toward government, an organized structure of exchange. Here are some other definitions. Even the smallest communities have governments, if they are but informal cliques.
A small government that is responsible for very little is... not a new concept. It is certainly not an idea invented by Libertarians or any other modern, trendy group. It is exceedingly traditional and history books illustrate very repetitively, that a small group of people, given the intrinsically high level of power engendered through formal organization (a government), will do their best to benefit from that power at the expense of everyone else. A small group will not limit themselves - not by legislation, anyway.
I rather like by the people, for the people, the large government in which many participate, distributing power amongst all who wish it. Unfortunately, if only 25% of the potential voting population exercises their rights, then you get a gov't that represents those 25%, resulting in a schism between the people and their gov't. That apathy, privilege blindness and complacency, are the ironic products of a stable government. The United States has a very open, user-friendly system in place, with built-in hackles to reduce abuses of power, that encourages participation. Unfortunately, that's work, isn't it?
So I might be a democrat who thinks libertarians are arrogant, smug idiots, but the lovely thing is, we live in a nation with a government that encourages these differences in opinion. That is more wonderful than most people realize, even if we do spend all our time squabbling over how to do things best, with our right to squabble.