What is a progressive libertarian?
Before I go any further, I thought that I'd take some time to explain my own political philosophy. I call myself a progressive libertarian, so what does that mean?
Simply reading the posts so far doesn't tell the whole story. On some issues, I'll sound like I'm coming from the right. On other issues, I'll sound like I'm coming from the left. It might seem inconsistent, but it fits together well once you see the whole picture.
Many libertarians see the government as a stifling force that prevents them from doing what they want. It prevents them from reaching greatness, and it should be minimized as much as possible. I, on the other hand, see the government as both necessary and sometimes beneficial. I don't believe that private is always better than public, nor that freedom solves everything.
However, I do believe the government often overregulates in a response to "solve issues". For example, in Ontario the government recently introduced a pit bull ban after a man was attacked and severely injured. As often happens with emotional issues, the talking heads started weighing in and stirring public outrage, and within weeks the ban came out. There's no logic or rational thought going on here, people are simply overreacting. Now there's a public smoking ban. Personally, I don't smoke or ever intend too, nor do I think that restaurant workers should have to work with the dangers of second hand smoke. Yet, when the new ban prevents even seperately ventilated smoking rooms where the workers don't have to enter, that's going way over the boundary.
This is the crux of the issue. The government reacts the mood swings of the day, especially that battle cry of "think of the children!". We're being smothered by good intentions, and we really don't need a law for every possible situation. There are dangers everywhere, its a fact of life.
I think the pros and cons of government involvement have to be carefully weighed before a law comes to pass. If the pros outweigh the cons (and often they will), then go ahead and pass a law. Politicians don't do this kind of analysis. Actually, you're lucky if they even read the bills they're voting on.
Socialists on the other hand, see the market as the great exploiter. Big Business is evil and will take you to the cleaners whenever it has the chance. Huge faceless corporations are ruining the planet and enslaving people. Like government, I also view the market as neither evil nor inherently exploitive. The market is neither benign nor malevolent, it simply is. Like good intention government, profit seekers can also exceed boundaries without regard to the consequences. However, most companies are simply trying to make a decent profit and will react to what consumers want.
In fact, the free market might be the one to solve the oil situation. As oil prices rise, the market itself will look to alternative energy sources. However, what will likely happen is that people (and even many companies) will ask the government to control oil prices. If the government agrees, then the alternative fuels won't be developed and when the oil does run out, we'll be up a creek without a paddle.
As for the welfare state, I think that needs work. I don't believe in social Darwinism, but I don't think a social safety net is nearly as useful as a ladder. The net keeps people from falling farther, but it doesn't really do anything to get them off welfare either. Instead, we should look at programs that help people get back on their feet as quickly as possible, even if they seem more expensive in the short term. It's far better to spend $100 000 to train a person and get them back into the workforce, then to spend $15 000 a year for the rest of their lives.
posted by Kyle_From_Ottawa @ 1:45 p.m.
7 comments
7 Comments:
Not surprisingly, I agree with most of what you wrote.
However, one err I see is the comparison between government and corporations. While there are similar in some ways, there are notable differences.
Corporations in the private sector compete for employees, and to do so they must offer attractive benefits and competitive pay. People are free to quit a job and take another with little interruption in their lives.
On the other hand, the state does not compete, and its "benefits" are non-negotiable, save occasional elections. Unless a person relocates himself and his family to another country, he may not alter the circumstances under which he lives.
That is why I favor local government to State (Provincial) government, which are both preferrable to centralized federal authority. It is easier to move to the next city, than the next State/Province, than another country.
I am often ridiculed for suggesting that people who don't like the local or State laws should move to an area where the regulations are more favorable, but I believe that to be just the formula envisioned by the men who founded America.
I'm not sure about the politics in Canada, but the two major parties in America are more similar than they are different, and so in all cases we seem to get more government, more big brother, and less freedom.
Actually, I'd take it a step lower than the state/provicial level.
I'd say its the municipal government that's most important. It's the one that can solve your needs the most, but it has the least capabilities to do so. They aren't even mentioned in either the U.S. or Canadian constitution.
Essentially, I think that you would consider a nation sort of like a corporation. The federal level is the top executives, the states/provinces are the managers, and the local governments are the normal employees. You can read Dilbert to understand how a dysfunctional company tends to have micromanagement from above.
However, lack of direction from above can be almost as bad. Ideally, the top level should set a broad direction, the next level should add some detail, and the lowest level should have enough leverage to accomplish its goals.
I understand how a government does limit choice, but I feel that its sometimes necessary to step in.
Ideally, I think government should seem almost invisible in your daily life. It'll step in as necessary, but never more than necessary.
It's the definition of when its necessary that's subject to debate in libertarian circles, and I don't think there will ever be a consensus. Some like me set the threshold a little higher, and some set it so low as to be only one step above anarchy.
"Essentially, I think that you would consider a nation sort of like a corporation. The federal level is the top executives, the states/provinces are the managers, and the local governments are the normal employees. You can read Dilbert to understand how a dysfunctional company tends to have micromanagement from above."
Not really. Where I work, the owner and execs have the authority to step in when and where ever they wish, and their directives must be followed.
In America, we were setup so that the feds only have specific powers, and anything outside those bounds are simply not under their control.
Over time, the feds have become more powerful than they were meant to be, but it doesn't change my opinion of how it should be.
For example, schools should be run at the local level only. Each town can set its rules and regulations on that, and the feds should have no business deciding which book our kids should be reading or what assessment test they need to take.
Of all the various functions of gov't, I want local governments to have as much responsibility and authority as possible, followed by the States who do as much independently as they can. The feds should only do that which is necessary at that level, such as military, foreign relations, and international commerce.
The federal government should not be able to micromanage EVERY function of every layer and level government in the whole country. Otherwise, why have State and locals?
Sorry, I was using "you" in the rhetorical sense, I didn't mean you as in Veritas. I was actually agreeing with you.
Anyway, I've worked under both micromanaging directors and hands-off directors, and I definitely find that hands-off is the way to go. I mean if there's a crisis, then my director will step in, but the rest of the time I have a lot of leeway.
Under a micromanaging director though I found things stifling. Likewise, I think the federal government here in Canada is trying to micromange. However, I wouldn't want to go to the opposite extreme either.
As for the "company" metaphor:
Ideal:
Federal - Sets the "Grand Vision" for the country, doesn't haggle the details. Like a CEO setting a vision for a company.
Pronvincial/State - Sets the goals for the province, allocates funding, etc. Like a director setting division goals and budgets.
Local - Sweats the details. Like the manager and employees that do the actual work.
How education should work, ideally:
Feds - sets guidelines to ensure that a 12th grade student from Toronto is reasonably comparible to a 12th grade student from Vancouver.
Provinces - allocates funding to ensure schools have the resources they need to teach. May add a few additional guidelines to ensure students within the province are roughly equivalent
Local school boards - Sets the curriculum, testing, etc based on local students strengths and weaknesses.
Current System in Canada:
Federal - Sets the vision and explicitly states how you get there or else you lose your transfer payments.
Provincial - Dumps as much as it can down to the local level (while keeping all the tax revenues to itself) while whining that the feds are simultaneously not doing enough and yet infringing on provincial jurisdiction.
Local - Required to implement all the dictates from above without any funding. The two upper levels get to claim "balanced budgets" without cutting anything, whereas the local government is forced to raise property taxes to meet federal/provincial mandates while taking all the blame from the taxpayers for the upper layers mismanagement.
Current Education in Canada
Feds - They don't really influence education except making empty platitudes at election time.
Provinces - Rules education with an iron fist. They dictate everything about education.
School Boards - Implement the dictates from the provincial capitals with little decision making capability of their own other than where a new school will be built and what color of paint to use in the hallways.
Well ... I agree with much of your viewpoint, but should add a quick two cents' worth:
Penny 1:
The pit bull ban actually was years in the making. Follow the history of this one closely - they have been debating it for the past few years and have responded to what is actually overwhelming public outcry in areas where many attacks have occurred over the past several years. For a time in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, for example (I use this as for many years I lived there) there was an attack in the news every other month. What I'm saying is while it wasn't necessarily the right decision - that point is debatable, I'll give you that - it was certainly not one that was rash, and was based on years of public demand for such a ban.
Penny #2:
The smoking ban. I agree with you on this one - it did go too far inthat smokers' own rights to engage in something perfectly legal were trumped. Rather than find a workable solution to meet the rights of both sides, nonsmokers won hands down. Those who puff are limited to outdoor areas in many establishments, and we all know what winters here are like. The lucky establishments were equipped to convert patios into smoking areas, many of them heated and shielded somewhat from the wind (think the rule is 30% open space, varies from city to city). I was in K-W when they spearheaded this a few years back. My smoker friends there are still angry - and rightfully so - the hypocrisy here is to protect the health of nonsmokers they put smokers out in the chilly weather, because hey, they're going to die anyway, so who cares? Guess they forgot the nonsmokers will one day die of something too.
Like your blog. Will add it to my links. Great food for thought, even if my bit-left-of-centre view doesn't always agree - I always appreciate an alternate view!
I recently became a anarchist coming more from the mutualist perspective. I support gradual change. Noam Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist which is a form of voluntary socialism rather then state socialism. Sometimes also called free market socialism. Socialism has such a negative connotation, maybe libertarian progressive should be used instead of libertarian socialist.
Post a Comment
<< Home