12 ms·
Zero is not just a really small number. “Little” or “less” are relative to current size at time of critique and stand in opposition to “large” and “more”. I’m s
by aksss 5y ago
Zero is not just a really small number. “Little” or “less” are relative to current size at time of critique and stand in opposition to “large” and “more”. I’m simply saying that libertarian thought should not be straw-manned as anarchy, nor would it be accurate to treat libertarian-leaning people as a monolith with a dialed in prescription. Government, and governing, are highly complex particularly at the federal level. You could spend a lifetime just trying to fix the government’s relationship to the finance sector alone with libertarian principles which would still allow room for regulation, attempt to house expertise and manage corruption and count yourself lucky if you made any sort of improvement/dent. Giving catch-all advice about what should be done across the entire spectrum of government in a sound bite is foolish no matter what your political principles are. It’s never as simple as “go back to the gold standard and eliminate all regulation”, but sadly it’s easy to caricature the libertarian critique as this because there literally are nincompoops who spout this drivel. Judging any worldview by its worst examples is not intellectually honest, though.
- intrasight 5y agoextreme anarchist would say "zero goverment" but that different than "default to self-government" which is more consistent with rational anarchism. So I maintain that they aren't too far apart. Both are about choosing the limited scope of the state.