13th July 2010, 8:54 PM
There are libertarians who are really anarchists. I've come to accept that there is a place for government in certain aspects, things that individual communities and states simply cannot provide, and are important. Science funding is a major one. National defense is another. I'm not even strictly against national health care, if it operates in a way that does not interfere with the patient's interests and the accounting is very thorough (the primary reason I don't like ObamaCare is that I think it is very sloppy on both fronts).
Honestly, though, I think many, many things have changed since 1789, and it is not realistic, or wise, to revert everything back that far. The founders were, on the whole, wise men, but by no means prescient, and there are parts of the Constitution (not many, mind) which should be revised to fit with the current state of things. What, for example, would they have thought about a health-care system which provides for everyone's well-being? It's hard to say. I doubt the concept would even fit in most of their imaginations.
One major thing that has changed since 1789 is the importance of states. Back then, there were only 13, and people rarely left the state in which they were born. Each state was very heterogeneous, almost national entities of their own right. The trend has been angling away from this ever since the Civil War, and with mobility and communications being what they are today, the notion of a state is, realistically, more of a statistical subdivision rather than a self-contained political enterprise allied to all other states by writ of law. If the states today had the kind of political sway they had back then, demographics and political differences might have the United States resembling Yugoslavia. In a handful of generations, Hispanics will likely be a majority ethnicity. Do we want a situation where states of heavy Hispanic population decide that they want out of the Union?
I think the optimal methodology is to not fully subscribe to any individual political philosophy, but to approach every problem individually, and consider which solutions will provide the best solutions and the least amount of disruption. Sometimes, that will mean that the government is going to have to spend some money and, sometimes, take some control. Individuals will never be able to stand against groups, and if they form groups, they have the potential to themselves oppress other individuals. There needs to be a balance in all things. Or, as close as we can manage.
Honestly, though, I think many, many things have changed since 1789, and it is not realistic, or wise, to revert everything back that far. The founders were, on the whole, wise men, but by no means prescient, and there are parts of the Constitution (not many, mind) which should be revised to fit with the current state of things. What, for example, would they have thought about a health-care system which provides for everyone's well-being? It's hard to say. I doubt the concept would even fit in most of their imaginations.
One major thing that has changed since 1789 is the importance of states. Back then, there were only 13, and people rarely left the state in which they were born. Each state was very heterogeneous, almost national entities of their own right. The trend has been angling away from this ever since the Civil War, and with mobility and communications being what they are today, the notion of a state is, realistically, more of a statistical subdivision rather than a self-contained political enterprise allied to all other states by writ of law. If the states today had the kind of political sway they had back then, demographics and political differences might have the United States resembling Yugoslavia. In a handful of generations, Hispanics will likely be a majority ethnicity. Do we want a situation where states of heavy Hispanic population decide that they want out of the Union?
I think the optimal methodology is to not fully subscribe to any individual political philosophy, but to approach every problem individually, and consider which solutions will provide the best solutions and the least amount of disruption. Sometimes, that will mean that the government is going to have to spend some money and, sometimes, take some control. Individuals will never be able to stand against groups, and if they form groups, they have the potential to themselves oppress other individuals. There needs to be a balance in all things. Or, as close as we can manage.
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR