01-15-2018, 11:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2018, 04:48 AM by Bob Butler 1954.)
There seem to be a number of ways of looking at things.
One is economic. You look at issues like trickle down, deficit spending, whether we can afford safety nets, military spending, and the use of regulation to avoid abuse.
Others will look at the culture wars, at issues like guns, abortion and using the government to force culture change.
A third way involves class. Which group of people own government, and manipulate the government to their advantage? Are the red affinity for the upper classes, or the blue for the lower, abuse?
Another angle is race. Is the government used in favor or against a given race or cultural group? Do parties in fact ally with given groups?
And astrology? Religious motivation?
The above theories are not really complex enough to include all perspectives, all motivations. As such, it is hard to model something all inclusive. You have to form people into groups and assume simplistic motivations. Is it possible?
In abstract, you would favor non-action. Freedom is nobody stepping on anyone else.
In practice, somebody has to prevent anyone from stepping on anyone else. It is easy enough to abuse military power, or race, or government, or police powers, or a gender's place, ad nausium and etc... Certain forms of abuse should not be tolerated. Certain abuses have existed in the past.
The problem is agreeing on which abuses must be fought and when government interference is itself abuse. I have objection to libertarianism that assumes abuse has never existed and action needs not be taken. It has also been objectionable to enable corrective measures. Not every restriction need be good.
One is economic. You look at issues like trickle down, deficit spending, whether we can afford safety nets, military spending, and the use of regulation to avoid abuse.
Others will look at the culture wars, at issues like guns, abortion and using the government to force culture change.
A third way involves class. Which group of people own government, and manipulate the government to their advantage? Are the red affinity for the upper classes, or the blue for the lower, abuse?
Another angle is race. Is the government used in favor or against a given race or cultural group? Do parties in fact ally with given groups?
And astrology? Religious motivation?
The above theories are not really complex enough to include all perspectives, all motivations. As such, it is hard to model something all inclusive. You have to form people into groups and assume simplistic motivations. Is it possible?
In abstract, you would favor non-action. Freedom is nobody stepping on anyone else.
In practice, somebody has to prevent anyone from stepping on anyone else. It is easy enough to abuse military power, or race, or government, or police powers, or a gender's place, ad nausium and etc... Certain forms of abuse should not be tolerated. Certain abuses have existed in the past.
The problem is agreeing on which abuses must be fought and when government interference is itself abuse. I have objection to libertarianism that assumes abuse has never existed and action needs not be taken. It has also been objectionable to enable corrective measures. Not every restriction need be good.