The Libertarian Ideology

http://www.libertarianism.org/...ction-libertarianism

"Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property—rights that people possess naturally, before governments are instituted. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force—actions such as murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.

Libertarians believe in the presumption of liberty. That is, libertarians believe people ought to be free to live as they choose unless advocates of coercion can make a compelling case. It’s the exercise of power, not the exercise of freedom, that requires justification. The burden of proof ought to be on those who want to limit our freedom. ...

 

The old ideologies have been tried and found wanting. All around us—from the postcommunist world to the military dictatorships of Africa to the insolvent welfare states of Europe and the Americas—we see the failed legacy of coercion and statism. At the same time we see moves toward libertarian solutions— constitutional government in Eastern Europe and South Africa, privatization in Britain and Latin America, democracy and the rule of law in South Korea and Taiwan, the spread of women’s rights and gay rights, and economic liberalization in China, India, and even some countries in Africa. Challenges to freedom remain, of course, including the continuing lack of Enlightenment values in much of the world, the unsustainable welfare states in the rich countries and the interests that fight reform, the recurring desire for centralized and top-down political institutions such as the Eurozone, Islamist theocracy, and the spread of “populist,” antilibertarian responses to social change and economic crisis. Libertarianism offers an alternative to coercive government that should appeal to peaceful, productive people everywhere.

No, a libertarian world won’t be a perfect one. There will still be inequality, poverty, crime, corruption, man’s inhumanity to man. But unlike the theocratic visionaries, the pie-in-the-sky socialist utopians, or the starry-eyed Mr. Fixits of the New Deal and Great Society, libertarians don’t promise you a rose garden. Karl Popper once said that attempts to create heaven on earth invariably produce hell. Libertarianism holds out the goal not of a perfect society but of a better and freer one. It promises a world in which more of the decisions will be made in the right way by the right person: you. The result will be not an end to crime and poverty and inequality but less—often much less—of most of those things most of the time."

Original Post

I agree with what is stated here.  Although, I tend toward the Scottish Enlightenment that reconciled science and religion.  Rather, than the French version, that alienated religion.  While, it pretended to place man at the center of all. in actuality it traded a king for a Directory for an Emperor.  Only the heads rolling from Madame La Guillotine changed.

Natural rights, the basis for libertarianism, have a long history in western culture beginning with Greek philosophers, continuing with Catholic theologians, and then the polishing of ideas during the age of enlightenment. They are the rights that predate and are supposed to be above man made laws and are supposed to be irrevocable. Statists would have us trade those rights for the false security of the welfare state.

I'm somewhat between a libertarian, an economic conservative, and a constitutionalist. I believe in letting folks believe and behave as they like up to the point where they impact the rights of others; I believe that Adam Smith's brand of capitalism is the best economic system; and I believe that the powers of government must be limited to the protection of the people from invasion and criminality, run the courts of law, and to only provide the necessary services that private enterprise can't provide.

Does anyone wonder why, the US, among all the other nations in the Western Hemisphere has prospered in a manner not seen in human history?  The natural resources are no better than those of Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, nor a combination of the smaller nations.  Certainly, the human capital, isn't in some way inferior genetically to those who arrived and settled the nation.  In fact, most who arrive prosper as those already here.  There is no magic dirt that elevated the US to its economic prosperity and freedom. 

Rather, the nation was the inheritor of classical liberal thought (not to be confounded with the left wing perversion of the term).   Among the contributors was Scottish economist, Adam Smith.  His An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations  is a collection of observations of what worked and what didn't to improve the wealth of nations, not theory like Marx as to how to force people into a mold.  John Locke, physician and philosopher, is considered the father of classic liberalism -- natural rights.  His works influenced both the Scottish and French enlightenments. 

I had hoped someone would further expound on why the US leaped forward economically so far ahead of not only the other nations in the western hemisphere,  but globally. 

The Democrats claim slavery was a foundation stone in building the nation.  True, blacks and, early in the colonial history, whites were slaves.  However, slavery was  legal in every nation and colony in this hemisphere.   In the US, slavery ended in 1865,  It continued in other areas.  In Brazil, the last nation to end slavery, did so in 1888, with the approval of their emperor, Pedro II.  Brazil is always the next great nation, but never arrives. 

While marginally profitable in an agrarian society, as the industrial revolution progressed, it was not only morally reprehensible, but economically a loser.

So, why did the US leap ahead?

 

So, why did the US leap ahead?-------Dire

I'm sure the usual suspects can invoke the names of a few magic wand waving new-fangled liberals to counter the truth that the classical liberals created a special country with special conditions because of a restrained government. When the statists screw things up enough the voters sack them and a little sanity returns. Even though we haven't purged the government of enough wasteful bureaucracy to get back to the glory days, times like the Reagan administration and the midterm spanking of Clinton in 1994 were enough for the economy to shine because the rest of the world is too shackled to regressive "progressive" ideas.

Stanky posted:

So, why did the US leap ahead?-------Dire

I'm sure the usual suspects can invoke the names of a few magic wand waving new-fangled liberals to counter the truth that the classical liberals created a special country with special conditions because of a restrained government. When the statists screw things up enough the voters sack them and a little sanity returns. Even though we haven't purged the government of enough wasteful bureaucracy to get back to the glory days, times like the Reagan administration and the midterm spanking of Clinton in 1994 were enough for the economy to shine because the rest of the world is too shackled to regressive "progressive" ideas.

As you've stated, a nation with few restricts upon the actions of people to better themselves, as long and their neighbors weren't harmed,  plus even fewer restrictions upon the mind.   Most government decisions were at the lowest level possible -- town, county, state and national, in that order.

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×