As a libertarian, I'm often confused by the utter contradictions in being either a Democrat or a Republican.
Speaking in generalities of course, a Democrat is against the government in their bedroom, but for it in their wallet. A Republican is the opposite. It doesn't make sense.
Why is it ok to co-opt the government in one case but not the other?
It seems like we would have a two-party system where people are either for an authoritarian democracy, where an elite government decides which behaviors and wealth distribution are appropriate, or a libertarian one, where the government provides minimal services to ensure individual rights.
4 comments:
Totally hear you on the general point. The two-party system is bizarre and gives us weird value groupings. There's no reason why being for free trade should mean you're against gay marriage, or whatever.
As someone who would identify as a Democrat if pressed, though, I feel like I should say that I wouldn't characterize the Democratic stance as "government out of the bedroom, into my wallet." And I'm not sure that Republicans are really "out of my wallet" though they are certainly trying to legislate about my bedroom.
My understanding is that the point of government is to make it so that we each live lives with a higher standard of living than we would if we were completely on our own. That's the point of cooperation, that's why we're willing to "sign the social contract" (as it were). In order for that to actually happen, though, we each have to chip in a little, and the government is formed of our representatives who pool it and use it in ways that benefit society as a whole. We can debate about what those ways are -- should we worry about raising everyone's current standard of living (e.g. give everyone $100) or should we focus our aid on the poorest (lowering the standard deviation of the wealth distribution, insert "veil of ignorance" arguments here)? In general I'm inclined to think that the latter course of action is the more just, more socially optimal outcome, and that's why I consider myself a Democrat. But either way, the government is taking money from us -- or, to phrase it less antagonistically, we're uniting and calling that union "the government," and then each backing our union up with some of our own resources. The difference is more in things like -- do we spend that money on helping children get educated and fed, and openly admit that we're spending money? Or do we spend that money on making a Defense Department orders of magnitude larger than any other country in the name of the common good, and obfuscate this by making a big deal out of returning a bit of money to each person?
It was intentionally a short over-generalization for sure. :)
Republicans talk big about less taxes and less government in the economy. To your point though, they just can't seem to let go of the military. But overall, the Republican dogma is to let the individual choose how to earn/spend their money and that will drive the economy optimally. The success of this effort in reality is debatable.
Democrats, while generally capitalists in the same base way as Republicans, believe in using the government to "smooth the edges" or "fill in the potholes" left by capitalism. The success of this effort in reality is also debatable.
You wrote:
"My understanding is that the point of government is to make it so that we each live lives with a higher standard of living than we would if we were completely on our own."
I actually don't agree with this. I think that the point of government is to protect the freedom and liberty of its citizenry. The economic and social system that results allows for an optimal environment for progress (which makes me sound more like a Republican).
I do question that current state of our capitalism system. I think a lot of it is related to our financial industry that has gotten control of the government over the last century. It's also possible that the creation of monolithic, multinational corporations have completely skewed the traditional outcome of capitalism.
Good points, I see what you're getting at. One question though --
"I think that the point of government is to protect the freedom and liberty of its citizenry."
Protect it against what? Wouldn't we be more free, have more liberty, if there were no government at all? If that is the primary purpose ... why stop at libertarian and not go all the way to anarchist?
"Protect it against what?"
Normally, the government would have to protect the rights of individuals from other individuals - provide a reliable rule of law. There are also the checks and balances against itself to make sure it isn't the problem either.
"Wouldn't we be more free, have more liberty, if there were no government at all? If that is the primary purpose ... why stop at libertarian and not go all the way to anarchist?"
I actually blogged about this a couple of years ago. I have a friend that is an anarchy zealot.
I prefer to live in reality, which is why I am probably more of a left-leaning libertarian. In spite of what I've already generalized, I'm for certain government programs (roads, schools, etc.) and am tolerant of others in moderation. As a result, there must be taxation, even though I have somewhat of a problem with the forced nature of it.
I'd prefer some sort of consumption tax over an income tax. This should yield similar results to our progressive tax system, but is not as invasive.
Post a Comment