In so many of the currents in the stream of debate, the libertarian must fold his arms and shake his head. It is often difficult to get the pro liberty argument across - at least not where it matters. This is partly because the stock position of the liberty-lover, with regards to what should be done? (by the government?, or, as they euphemise, what should we do about it?), is; do nothing, and what you are doing, stop.
Probably more than ninety percent of the problems we, as a nation or as a body politic, face are either; caused directly by the government or indirectly by the government, or by independent forces, but are nevertheless made worse by government intervention.
Probably more than ninety percent of the problems we, as a nation or as a body politic, face are either; caused directly by the government or indirectly by the government, or by independent forces, but are nevertheless made worse by government intervention.
3 comments:
They simply cannot get the concept that they are our servants, not our rulers.
I've found the most effective argument for liberty isn't liberty itself... it's playing team red and team blue off against each other. If you're dealing with team blue, I ask them to imagine what team red would do given the same authority that they want team blue to wield. And vice versa. My (far left) family got all thoughtful when I proposed that hate speech laws which protected Muslims would also protect Christians and did they _really_ want that to happen?
That is a good strategy. Interestingly, in the current education debate we find the 'progressives' trying to deal with a traditionalist minister, and coming to the conclusion that democratic control of education is bad, and that the task should be handed over to 'experts', rather than the correct, in my view, conclusion that there should not be any central control.
Post a Comment