Without going too far into that, I do think there is more concordance between libertarians and socialists than you would initially suspect. In practice, they tend to agree on social freedoms and disagree on economic policy. Fair enough, but why? Well, in practice again, there are assumptions made on both sides about economic results. Presumably much of this could be eliminated, but macroeconomics a science of very few trials and no control groups -- but who said it had to be easy? It seems, though, that there should be some core difference that prompts all this guesswork. I've been turning this over, and I put forward that both libertarianism and socialism can be extended from one root ethical proposition:
- Libertarianism: A government is an object, the purpose of which is to guarantee certain rights to its citizens.
- Socialism: A government is an object, the purpose of which is to promote the general welfare of its citizens.
A government is an object.It's easy to push right past this, but it's quite crucial when you stop to consider what else a government might be. In an authoritarian mindset, government is an absolute, and citizens are subordinate. Ethically the government becomes an end in itself, regardless of its actions. Alternately, one might simply state that government is a collection of people, which is almost always true in some sense, but as a starting principle drives towards an adversarial relationship -- especially when that collection of people begins the collection of taxes. Government as an object, however, is necessarily subordinate to its citizens (presuming we here agree to value people more greatly than objects, yes?). Any powers granted to such a government must be inherently necessary for its purpose. Any other powers are not legitimate powers of government -- any more than a bow-tie is part of a lawn mower.
Next Up: What if Peewee Herman mows your lawn? Also, I work on backing up some assertions.
No comments:
Post a Comment