I find it interesting the political viewpoints we all have and our reasoning behind our views. I've learned over the years, by and large, people are genuine with their beliefs; they truly feel their political views are in the best interest of most everyone involved and they're not looking to coerce people into unfortunate situations. That being said, I think we often overlook some basic truths and are often very inconsistent with our opinions.
For example, people often referred to as leftists or liberals are often anti-war, support freedom of personal choice (i.e. legalization of marijuana), tolerance, and diversity. All of which I also support and find to be foundations to any truly free society. However, these same individuals do not favor economic freedom of choice. Individuals in this general category are advocates of a progressive tax, welfare programs, and other public subsidies. This viewpoint tends to ignore the simple fact that government does not have any wealth of its own to redistribute and finds it perfectly acceptable to use government force to fund certain programs. As I mentioned before, I do not question the motives of individuals with this viewpoint. The intent is to help those in need and this is not at all what I question. I simply suggest the means do not justify the end and have a hard time reconciling how one can be an advocate of social freedom but not economic freedom.
On the other side of the American spectrum, we have those on the right - the conservatives. The general stated viewpoint is government should be small, people should be given economic freedom, and government should stay out of the way of the people. Again, these are also what I view to be key components to a free society. However, people with this viewpoint tend to want to use the government to prevent gay marriage and support the War on Drugs. Again, this seems to be a conflicting set of principals to me.
My opinion is if we want a truly free society, we have to be equally committed to social and economic freedom. I find when I say this to many people, the response I get leads me to believe they are interpreting "free society" as anarchy, and that is not what I view a free society to be. In a previous post, I mentioned what I view to be the fundamental role of government. The top two reasons for government should be 1) defend individual property rights and 2) defend the individuals right to life and to freedom to pursue happiness. With these top two functions in mind, a government in a free society still prosecutes murderers, thieves, and those committing acts of fraud and it still provides a military for the common defense. A free society is not anarchy.
Unfortunately, both mainstream parties have views which I see as rather glaring inconsistencies with a free society. This is why I tend to find myself agreeing more and more with Libertarians. Libertarians are opposed to legislation on same sex marriage, see the War on Drugs as a massive waste of tax payer money and an attack on personal freedom, and they also are against using government force to fund social welfare programs. Yes, advocating a free society means acknowledging that individuals have a right to behave as they wish, even irresponsibly, as long as it does not infringe on another individual's life or property. It also means that people should be given the freedom to spend their money as they wish and to help those they choose to help. If people were truly allowed to do so, without any government regulation favoring one group vs. another, I believe this would lead to a peaceful and economically sound society.
No comments:
Post a Comment