Sent to the National Post today - April 9th.
Karen Selick had done a great outline of the libertarian idea two days ago, likely a follow-on to her presentation at the Manning Conference that had so upset the Authoritarians within the Conservative Party of Canada. Of course the authoritarians are solidly in control of that spend spend spend and throw the kids in jail for a single pot plant party. I guess given their heritage with the tax and spend Conservatives in Alberta, which of course is now reaping the penalty of thier huge spending with huge deficit even while the tax grab from the oil industry remains huge for them, this was inevitable. I wonder why so few people see this, that the Conservatives are the last choice for the libertarians. Now the authoritarians are posting their opinion as if it was fact, of course I could not resist that!
Karen Selick had done a great outline of the libertarian idea two days ago, likely a follow-on to her presentation at the Manning Conference that had so upset the Authoritarians within the Conservative Party of Canada. Of course the authoritarians are solidly in control of that spend spend spend and throw the kids in jail for a single pot plant party. I guess given their heritage with the tax and spend Conservatives in Alberta, which of course is now reaping the penalty of thier huge spending with huge deficit even while the tax grab from the oil industry remains huge for them, this was inevitable. I wonder why so few people see this, that the Conservatives are the last choice for the libertarians. Now the authoritarians are posting their opinion as if it was fact, of course I could not resist that!
It was published, but in such a form I'm not sure I like my name being on it.
..................
As was predictable the authoritarians were out in force denouncing Karen Selick's presentation of the logic of the libertarian idea by stating thier opinion and resorting to the assumption of artificial constructs to denounce it as a heresy. If the replies are not simply opinion then on a logical basis please define "natural authority" and "incivility"? If indeed there are "common moral bonds" then there would be no need to enforce them on all individuals as they would be common. In the logical sense these terms cannot be usefully defined and so can only be seen as a proxy for personal opinion. If this was just opinion then I, as a Libertarian, say fine your entitled but I have to draw the line when opinion is to be applied to defining how the force that is government is to be used.
Harm to society is said to happen from certain personal choices; but just how can "society" be harmed when society is not a thing? In fact it is only individuals that can be harmed. One of the great powers of the libertarian idea is that it totally removes the mystical (opinion) requirements from the role of government and replaces it with only the logical role; the negative rights theory. Even the partial separation of church and state we enjoy in Canada and some other countries has of course served us as individuals very well and we by and large are rich and fairly free as a direct result. The next step is to remove the rest of personal opinion from the definition of the role of government.
Both writers seem to consider people inherently in need of redemption, but observation is that most people most of the time are fine individuals. If in doubt as to is this true then answer the question are you inherently evil and in need of constant restraint? See how elitist the notion of inherent evil is now; or are you really so much better than everyone else? Logically speaking the proper role of government should leave individuals alone most of the time. The only time restraint is needed is for as the bikers label them "the 1%" who do real harm to other individuals.
..................
As was predictable the authoritarians were out in force denouncing Karen Selick's presentation of the logic of the libertarian idea by stating thier opinion and resorting to the assumption of artificial constructs to denounce it as a heresy. If the replies are not simply opinion then on a logical basis please define "natural authority" and "incivility"? If indeed there are "common moral bonds" then there would be no need to enforce them on all individuals as they would be common. In the logical sense these terms cannot be usefully defined and so can only be seen as a proxy for personal opinion. If this was just opinion then I, as a Libertarian, say fine your entitled but I have to draw the line when opinion is to be applied to defining how the force that is government is to be used.
Harm to society is said to happen from certain personal choices; but just how can "society" be harmed when society is not a thing? In fact it is only individuals that can be harmed. One of the great powers of the libertarian idea is that it totally removes the mystical (opinion) requirements from the role of government and replaces it with only the logical role; the negative rights theory. Even the partial separation of church and state we enjoy in Canada and some other countries has of course served us as individuals very well and we by and large are rich and fairly free as a direct result. The next step is to remove the rest of personal opinion from the definition of the role of government.
Both writers seem to consider people inherently in need of redemption, but observation is that most people most of the time are fine individuals. If in doubt as to is this true then answer the question are you inherently evil and in need of constant restraint? See how elitist the notion of inherent evil is now; or are you really so much better than everyone else? Logically speaking the proper role of government should leave individuals alone most of the time. The only time restraint is needed is for as the bikers label them "the 1%" who do real harm to other individuals.
No comments:
Post a Comment