“A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others.”
F.A. Hayek
nostr:npub164q45vfa8prpl7f63stsl9qm9n22v6julkasjdqxjc8kevchsj0sp42rl3
It’s interesting and troubling that the American right/conservative has in many ways co-opted libertarian stances around a small number of supercharged/controversial political issues.
Classical liberalism (the predecessor of libertarianism, as I understand it) is about maximizing each individual’s freedom and potential while maintaining just enough socio-political structure to protect the rights and freedoms of everyone else.
That, I think, is a noble ideal, and one that most rational people tend to agree with. But in many ways, the notion of fighting for freedom has become associated with “but I want guns” and “you can’t make me mask up” which are so NOT the core questions around human flourishing and freedom. Does gun safety and public heath matter? Of course. But it’s like a memeification of the idea of what makes society free and healthy.
I guess you could point to the uni-party culture war nonsense as the reason for this?
We discuss politics, and elect politicians from the extremes, which leaves little room for classical liberalism.
Unfortunate and true. I’ve been feeling very conflicted about whether to be cautiously optimistic (my typical predisposition) that this will improve, as the pendulum’s momentum slows over time… or to lean into more of an opt-out mindset, as things are already pretty far gone.
As always, I believe I’ll settle into a “Middle Way” on this question, but it will take time to define and articulate this position…
Yeah, it’s unfortunate.
Political discourse has devolved into sound bites and gotcha moments.
Politicians are people, and I believe in people. The pendulum will swing back. I might be alive to see it, but I’m trying to prep my students and children for it.
Reflect on the analogy of the pendulum, it’s the same blade, it’s just half painted red and half blue. What you want is to remove the pendulum from the central planners hands and give one to each individual.
The best way to do this is to maximize the power each individual has over their environment, and what greater power to wield then money itself. Viva la bitcoin.
That’s a delightful take on a typically tired analogy 🙌
It appears to me that American politics today is two different ways of reaching the same goal. The right and the left discuss the best way to grow the government, it doesn’t matter what or how extreme the problem is you want to fix, if the solution is to have the government fix it.
Gun safety and public health problems do matter, but government can’t fix them.
votes don’t matter as governments can cheat, steal value, and direct opinions from their population. I think we are destined for increased insanity in both solutions to social problems and the spending needed to achieve them before people will understand that their desires and votes never mattered.
All the more reason I hope that “fix the money, fix the world” works out!
*stands on box* An alternate view: aggressors pick the battlefield. So when people “draw the line” at masks or some such, they usually know it’s inconsequential, but they feel forced by historical circumstances.
Sometimes of course the issue is consequential too. But I hear you saying it’s weird that often it isn’t.
It’s not (necessarily) that the issues in question are inconsequential. Sometimes they matter a lot, but what I find strange is that the party which is traditionally “big gov, less freedom” has seemingly co-opted a few hot-button talking points from the freedom-oriented group for what I see as liberty-reducing ends.
