|
I don't follow Libertarian politics, or any politics very closely, but they are probably slightly closer to where I lean than other parties. The problem with libertarian philosophy is that they say "whose business is it if I pee in my side of the pool". While personal actions might not directly affect someone, they indirectly affect people.
I'm no expert on forms of government. I think ours was founded on pretty good principles, and I'd certainly use that as a template. I subscribe to the notion that we have the right to do anything except for the things that cause undue harm towards others, or otherwise trample on others rights. Law should not spell out what we have the right to do; it's assumed we have the right to do everything. Rather, law should spell out what we do not have the right to do; the limitations necessary to have a healthy, orderly, and just society.
Authority limits creativity. To that end, authority should be bare minimum so that creativity is maximized. The tricky part is agreeing on what bare minimum is. We need to create a system where whenever a tragedy strikes, we don't act hastily to implement something that does more harm than good. In other words, we need to take reasonable action, not emotional reaction.
I'm always using terrorism as an example. In the US, you have more chance of dying in a ladder fall than a terrorist act, and ladder fall deaths aren't all that common (do you know someone that died falling from a ladder?). Why then is so much effort, talk and restrictions aimed at fighting terrorism? The terrorists continue to win as our actions create ongoing economic and personal impacts.
|