MyDoorsAreOpen
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 8,549
Not surprisingly I suppose, for a site dedicated to a pastime that's been outlawed, the classical liberal, libertarian, individual's rights and minimalist government camps have gotten a word in edgewise on BL for as long as I've been here. Although I'm all for amending drug laws, including getting rid of a whole lot of them, I've always been the kind of left-leaner that has supported egalitarian-minded government intervention, and think that the exhaust fumes that arise from this sort of arrangement are preferable to those in which profiteers can do as they please, and the government by and large doesn't do jack for citizens, and doesn't really regulate or monitor much.
As for me, I'm for whatever policies actually work at keeping inequalities in life quality as minimal as they possibly can get. Overall happy, peaceful, stable societies exist in places where there are no yawning discrepancies in what resources those at the top and those at the bottom have at their disposal. Right-wing conservatism never aimed to deliver equality. Does libertarianism / classical liberalism?
Libertarianism never sold me because it always struck me that most people have a government-shaped hole in their minds. More precisely, there's a strong and not-so-dwindling DEMAND for a government that provides more than the basic basics like military defense. As sensible and liberating as classical liberalism is on paper, the fact remains that most people prefer to leave the management of a number of big items in their lives to a central authority that at least keeps up some ideal (or for the cynical, pretense) of neutrality toward moneyed interests. As the US is learning with health insurance, some things are just better NOT privately owned and given free rein. I can see libertarianism being the obvious choice for someone who has always been raised to do for themselves, and has achieved a high degree of successful self-reliance. But I don't think you'll sell the many people whose butts have been saved by some sort of government policy or intervention on the merits of this political camp.
Moreover, I can think of historical examples of governments that have provided a vast array of public services in a way that was, for an extended period of time, efficient and well tailored to the needs and demands of the populace. And I think in most cases, these coincided with times when resources were well managed and distributed fairly evenly. I don't think it's a utopian or unattainable goal at all. We just need to get better at learning how to sustain it once we get it going.
Does anyone else here favor a progressive, left-leaning 'compassionate intervention' model of government in relation to society? If so, who are some writers or scholars who have written recently in defense of this view, that I should check out?
As for me, I'm for whatever policies actually work at keeping inequalities in life quality as minimal as they possibly can get. Overall happy, peaceful, stable societies exist in places where there are no yawning discrepancies in what resources those at the top and those at the bottom have at their disposal. Right-wing conservatism never aimed to deliver equality. Does libertarianism / classical liberalism?
Libertarianism never sold me because it always struck me that most people have a government-shaped hole in their minds. More precisely, there's a strong and not-so-dwindling DEMAND for a government that provides more than the basic basics like military defense. As sensible and liberating as classical liberalism is on paper, the fact remains that most people prefer to leave the management of a number of big items in their lives to a central authority that at least keeps up some ideal (or for the cynical, pretense) of neutrality toward moneyed interests. As the US is learning with health insurance, some things are just better NOT privately owned and given free rein. I can see libertarianism being the obvious choice for someone who has always been raised to do for themselves, and has achieved a high degree of successful self-reliance. But I don't think you'll sell the many people whose butts have been saved by some sort of government policy or intervention on the merits of this political camp.
Moreover, I can think of historical examples of governments that have provided a vast array of public services in a way that was, for an extended period of time, efficient and well tailored to the needs and demands of the populace. And I think in most cases, these coincided with times when resources were well managed and distributed fairly evenly. I don't think it's a utopian or unattainable goal at all. We just need to get better at learning how to sustain it once we get it going.
Does anyone else here favor a progressive, left-leaning 'compassionate intervention' model of government in relation to society? If so, who are some writers or scholars who have written recently in defense of this view, that I should check out?