I lurk here sensing a common invisible bond with many of you.
When I see silly things done by powerful people I wonder; what's going on?
I have a good idea of libertarian sentiments. Beyond sentiments I'm hoping to get (or give) persuasive arguments and understand root causes for the differences that divide me from my nouveau liberal brethren. I use that term to save the appearances for all those who are, true, aaah ... classical liberals. For example I have a classical liberal view of education, which has nothing to do with government. As a matter of fact, the modern liberal elite in the university has the lowest regard for diversity of opinion you can find, viciously antithetical to what was considered liberal in my day.
I say that as the husband of a college professor, ambivalent in my view, since I am collegial with them, and somehow the infection persists and spreads without the consent of the majority in the teaching profession.
One reason I defend “philosophy” as a topic of interest here is that I see error in the liberal philosophy, thus our root differences are philosophical.
I had a discussion with a friend of the liberal persuasion, who agreed with me on every principle essential to a topic, but couldn't denounce the “wrong” conclusion because to do so was less than compassionate. On the other hand it was OK to dismiss the anti-compassionate crowd (moderate, conservative, libertarian) they have been vilified so effectively. This is an emotional issue! So in some ways feelings trump ideas! This is not a good development, not for adults. Adults also need to be able to distinguish between license and freedom.
"Freedom is at once our greatest blessing and our darkest curse." - Ricardo
That belief discloses my essentially centrist nature.
Our job is difficult, that is to change minds. Perhaps not the minds of the radical egalitarian elite, but those on the margin. If libertarian philosophy demands we deal with life as we find it, rather than pander to emotions only, perhaps I'm in.
Over simplification, and unnecessary complexity each have their deleterious effects.
If you believe it's necessary for men to be “essentially good” for a free society to be “good” you have been coerced by the fallacy of composition. This notion has been effectively discredited by legions of economists and philosophers beginning with Adam Smith in “Wealth of Nations” to Milton Freedman in “Free to Choose”.
I also believe in what one of the Adams' said, “Our constitution is only appropriate for a (devout or righteous) people”. Sorry I can't recall it exactly, but the idea is important, that as American citizens we are participants in histories most radical experiment. We owe it to our selves and the experiment to understand the principles that it depends upon.
We may be effective or not, by attacking erroneous ideas, but not by attacking people.
“Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just”
Thomas Jefferson
Ricardo |
