It's been a long time since my last post. Suffice it to say that when I am not sure of what I think, I don't feel at all comfortable expressing it.
I revisit my beliefs from time to time. The good part about this is that my opinions are usually more grounded and defensible than they were previously. That's probably just normal maturation.
But, since I'm hesitant to let people see the work in progress, the result is alternating periods of murky quiet and definite, reasoned opinion.
It's very murky. I'm very quiet.
But at least I should explain the silence, i.e. I'm still alive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
We're a lot alike. Except the deep things you think about I only think about after a West Wing episode. Which, you should really get into, by the way.
Thanks for updating.
-Karin
Could you explain the difference, in lay terms, between a Federalist and a Libertarian?
Men.... they always have to go into their caves to think things out for themselves.
As opposed to women who like to figure things out by talking it through with someone else.
Hi Laurie,
I would say that "Libertarian" is a rather loose word that covers a lot of various groups. However, they all tend to believe that the state's power to coerce behavior, and indeed it's general involvement in our lives, should be limited as much as possible. Some take this to the extreme, and advocate no government.
Other words that mean roughly the same school of thought are "liberal" and "classical liberal". In the U.S., we changed the meaning of the word "liberal" a ways back so that it now means almost exactly the opposite of what it did.
I think of libertarianism as more philosophical, and federalism as more mechanical. A libertarian might say that individual liberty is a fundamental human right, and that the best system for doing things is generally for individuals to interact in non-coercive ways. Federalism to me is a system of making sure that the state's power doesn't get out of control.
To me, the most important aspect of federalism is that it allows for sub-governments to compete under some basic ground rules. If you don't like Missouri, move to Florida, or vice versa. Invasive government or bad policy isn't very pleasant, and liberal society tends to be more dynamic and enjoyable, so given time and the opportunity to choose, tyrannical states will die.
The direct election of senators as allowed by the 17th amendment was a mistake. By attempting to further the democratic aspects of our federal republic, we removed the direct representation of the state governments at the federal level. Now, both houses of congress at the national level have it in their interests to expand federal power at the expense of the states. You can't move away from America and stay in America, so this acts to limit options in terms of government.
I personally like classical liberalism, and it has a good set of thinkers to go with it: Adam Smith, John Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu, J.S. Mill, Hayek, Friedman, and our Founding Fathers in the Federalist Papers.
Thanks! I had heard of Libertarianism, but the other day I was listening to Newt in a debate and he called himself a Federalist and I just wondered at the difference. I think I've got it, now if I can only retain it.
I'm rusty on this stuff, but I don't think Hobbes was a classical liberalist. He advocated concentration of power in the hands of a VERY strong central government (The Leviathan represents what he thought governments should be: an overpowering monster). We need Matt the Philo major to weigh in because I admittedly slept through a great deal of my philo classes in college. I just don't think personal liberties were high up on Hobbes's list.
Oh, and by the way, I like your "The Hunt for Red October" reference.
Ok, so I just brushed up on my Hobbes on Wikipedia and. . .
you are right, I am wrong
you are handsome, I am not good looking
you are smart, I slept through my college classes. . .
What threw me off was that Hobbes advocated a monarchy and that didn't seem to fit with Liberalism but this sums it up nicely:
"Hobbes' leviathan state is still authoritative in matters of aggression, one man waging war on another, or any matters pertaining to the cohesiveness of the state. It should say nothing about what any man does otherwise; so long as one man does no harm to any other, the sovereign should keep its hands off him"
I am unworthy.
I reiterate but now expand: EACH of you should watch the West Wing. They talk about this Hobbesian Federalist Libertarian business there. Plus it has Rob Lowe.
Post a Comment