3 ms·

What I'm pointing out really has nothing to do with libertarianism, for what it's worth it's not a political position that I personally adhere to. I'm pointing

by avar 13y ago

What I'm pointing out really has nothing to do with libertarianism, for what it's worth it's not a political position that I personally adhere to. I'm pointing out that whatever your political leaning you don't "just" get the government involved. Even if you think you should have a larger government than you have now the question is what kind of larger government, and once you make the wrong choice there's a huge inertia in the system that makes correcting that choice very hard. So even people that agree that government should do more aren't easily brought on the bandwagon of the something the government wants to do being the right version of that "more".

saraid216 13y ago
> Even if you think you should have a larger government than you have now the question is what kind of larger government, and once you make the wrong choice there's a huge inertia in the system that makes correcting that choice very hard. To quote Theodore Roosevelt, > The citizen must have high ideals, and yet he must be able to achieve them in practical fashion. No permanent good comes from aspirations so lofty that they have grown fantastic and have become impossible and indeed undesirable to realize. The impractical visionary is far less often the guide and precursor than he is the embittered foe of the real reformer, of the man who, with stumblings and shortcoming, yet does in some shape, in practical fashion, give effect to the hopes and desires of those who strive for better things. Woe to the empty phrase-maker, to the empty idealist, who, instead of making ready the ground for the man of action, turns against him when he appears and hampers him when he does work! Moreover, the preacher of ideals must remember how sorry and contemptible is the figure which he will cut, how great the damage that he will do, if he does not himself, in his own life, strive measurably to realize the ideals that he preaches for others. Let him remember also that the worth of the ideal must be largely determined by the success with which it can in practice be realized. We should abhor the so-called "practical" men whose practicality assumes the shape of that peculiar baseness which finds its expression in disbelief in morality and decency, in disregard of high standards of living and conduct. Such a creature is the worst enemy of the body of politic. But only less desirable as a citizen is his nominal opponent and real ally, the man of fantastic vision who makes the impossible better forever the enemy of the possible good. tldr: don't make perfect the enemy of good. This comes several paragraphs after the famous "Man in the Arena" bit.
scarmig 13y ago
My point is this: the concept of a larger government is very murky, so we should be very careful when we're talking about it. The stereotypical libertarian will propose universal, strict enforcement of violence used to protect people to whom the State has granted monopoly access to material goods. I don't recognize that as a smaller State than someone who proposes that except annually taking some proportion of it and redistributing it. One state may be better than the other, but it's still all pile of violence, configured in a different way.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> My point is this: the concept of a larger government is very murky, so we should be very careful when we're talking about it. The US government is pretty fucking large right now, is it not? In fact, it's an Empire, and serves as a great warning example of what a minimal government can/will become. >> One state may be better than the other, but it's still all pile of violence, configured in a different way. Exactly. So how about no State then? They say that the difference between a Minarchist and an Anarchist is "about six months". The period of time in between is irrelevant. The point is that a lot of Libertarians end up going all the way once they start seeing reality for what it is.

by avar 13y ago

saraid216 13y ago

> Even if you think you should have a larger government than you have now the question is what kind of larger government, and once you make the wrong choice there's a huge inertia in the system that makes correcting that choice very hard. To quote Theodore Roosevelt, > The citizen must have high ideals, and yet he must be able to achieve them in practical fashion. No permanent good comes from aspirations so lofty that they have grown fantastic and have become impossible and indeed undesirable to realize. The impractical visionary is far less often the guide and precursor than he is the embittered foe of the real reformer, of the man who, with stumblings and shortcoming, yet does in some shape, in practical fashion, give effect to the hopes and desires of those who strive for better things. Woe to the empty phrase-maker, to the empty idealist, who, instead of making ready the ground for the man of action, turns against him when he appears and hampers him when he does work! Moreover, the preacher of ideals must remember how sorry and contemptible is the figure which he will cut, how great the damage that he will do, if he does not himself, in his own life, strive measurably to realize the ideals that he preaches for others. Let him remember also that the worth of the ideal must be largely determined by the success with which it can in practice be realized. We should abhor the so-called "practical" men whose practicality assumes the shape of that peculiar baseness which finds its expression in disbelief in morality and decency, in disregard of high standards of living and conduct. Such a creature is the worst enemy of the body of politic. But only less desirable as a citizen is his nominal opponent and real ally, the man of fantastic vision who makes the impossible better forever the enemy of the possible good. tldr: don't make perfect the enemy of good. This comes several paragraphs after the famous "Man in the Arena" bit.

scarmig 13y ago

My point is this: the concept of a larger government is very murky, so we should be very careful when we're talking about it. The stereotypical libertarian will propose universal, strict enforcement of violence used to protect people to whom the State has granted monopoly access to material goods. I don't recognize that as a smaller State than someone who proposes that except annually taking some proportion of it and redistributing it. One state may be better than the other, but it's still all pile of violence, configured in a different way.

anoncowherd 13y ago
>> My point is this: the concept of a larger government is very murky, so we should be very careful when we're talking about it. The US government is pretty fucking large right now, is it not? In fact, it's an Empire, and serves as a great warning example of what a minimal government can/will become. >> One state may be better than the other, but it's still all pile of violence, configured in a different way. Exactly. So how about no State then? They say that the difference between a Minarchist and an Anarchist is "about six months". The period of time in between is irrelevant. The point is that a lot of Libertarians end up going all the way once they start seeing reality for what it is.