The Political Norm of Centuries
by William D
permalink
There has consistently been a conflict between conservatives and liberals. Between those who want to maintain the status quo and those who want to see change. The connotations of the words conservative and liberal can change over time; here we are interested in their denotation. Is the eternal struggle between conservatives and liberals necessary? Are conservatism and liberalism a valid dichotomy?
I think not. The reactionary nature of these schools of thought limit them both on a fundamental level. Yes, both conservatism and liberalism are reactionary. Conservative thinking defers to the past, the way things were. It deems what was (or is) as right. It looks to society now and in the past for its moral guidelines and political dogma. It reacts to society as it exists, claiming it is just. Liberalism makes the opposite choice, but reacts to the same source. Liberal thinking examines society, and judges it as wrong. “Society is not perfect now, so we must change the way things are.” It holds change as the correct position in politics and moral affairs. It reacts to society as it exists, claiming it is not just.
The reasonable person’s alternative is individual rational thought. Acknowledging the existence of society, holding no bias for its moral justice. Given reason as our guide and the just way to organize human interaction as our goal, the proper consequence is freedom. Freedom of life, freedom of choice, freedom of action, of thought, of speech. Freedom from repression, freedom from tyranny, from taxation, from government.
This level of freedom implies anarchy. Mature individuals can live in anarchy. With no government interference, a rational thinker will flourish. He is given the opportunity to stand proudly on his own two feet. Every dealing with others is done with a freedom of choice, and possibly, with a contract to make the relationship and expectations explicit. He has the opportunity to create and enjoy as much wealth as his mind and desire allow him to produce. No one will protect him, so he must protect himself.
Most people can not or would want not to live in an anarchy; there should, however, be a choice. One cannot find a free land where a government does not hold the right to march you to a cell at gunpoint or kill you on sight. It is this free land we should seek—this is the second creation, the realization of the ideal. There is, however, a place for government: for those who do not wish to take full responsibility for their safety and their life. This is perfectly consistent with an anarchical view of society. People would choose to be under the protection of a government, and as such would live on its land and pay its taxes. With another alternative and some people leaving for a freer life (most likely the individuals of greatest value and productive capacity), governments would be forced to change in order to draw people back. We would see some governments growing smaller, lowering taxes, demanding less from the rich—as the rich have the most to gain from leaving government controlled land.
So how do we enable a system such as this, and how do we crystallize in peoples’ minds the importance of freedom? We clarify our own thoughts, inform others of the true consequence of freedom, and relentlessly pursue our dreams.
Discuss this Article (3 messages)
|
