- 03 Sep 2013 16:04
#14293610
Anybody worried about being sidelined by the masses should be an strong supporter of libertarianism. Only libertarianism maximally safeguards individuals against those masses of which you are concerned. In any non-libertarian system, the intelligent individual is, to some degree, subject to the decrees of politicians which, in turn, invariably appeal to and try to appease the "masses".
Thus I am forced to subsidise, through my TV License, the junk that is emitted by BBC 1.
In a libertarian system, individuals are much more capable of pursuing the local environment, interests and culture that suits them, with much less regard to the "masses".
You also seem to mistake the nature of libertarianism. Libertarians object to the use of coercion (primarily but not exclusively through government action). They do not, however, object to the use of education and persuasion. If you are concerned about decline in culture, you are most welcome, in the context of a libertarian society, to contribute to and become an active participant in societies, groups and organisations dedicated to that goal. Contribute money to free productions of Shakespeare, open-air classical music concerts, opening museums to school-children, etc.
The idea that promoting the use of government power, especially in the context of a democratic society, to fight against the forces of popular culture is deeply mistaken.
A libertarian system, by removing various subsidies for irresponsible behaviour, would tend to reduce incidences of such behaviour. It wouldn't "force" anybody to behave responsibly - merely make them face the actual consequences of their choices, something that a government is evidently and predictably, failing to do.
People should be free to do whatever they want as long as they don't violate other people's rights. That caveat makes members of a libertarian society much less susceptible to the influence of the majority.
SE23 wrote:This is the problem I have with libertarianism, the intelligent individual can be easily sidelined by the masses, as there is little incentive for them to pursue higher long term goals, its in their nature, when you look throughout history.
Anybody worried about being sidelined by the masses should be an strong supporter of libertarianism. Only libertarianism maximally safeguards individuals against those masses of which you are concerned. In any non-libertarian system, the intelligent individual is, to some degree, subject to the decrees of politicians which, in turn, invariably appeal to and try to appease the "masses".
Thus I am forced to subsidise, through my TV License, the junk that is emitted by BBC 1.
In a libertarian system, individuals are much more capable of pursuing the local environment, interests and culture that suits them, with much less regard to the "masses".
You also seem to mistake the nature of libertarianism. Libertarians object to the use of coercion (primarily but not exclusively through government action). They do not, however, object to the use of education and persuasion. If you are concerned about decline in culture, you are most welcome, in the context of a libertarian society, to contribute to and become an active participant in societies, groups and organisations dedicated to that goal. Contribute money to free productions of Shakespeare, open-air classical music concerts, opening museums to school-children, etc.
The idea that promoting the use of government power, especially in the context of a democratic society, to fight against the forces of popular culture is deeply mistaken.
The question i pose is; would a libertarian "system" would force a generational line of thinking, that would either render the parents of that child stamping out such behaviour, of the child themselves, would overtime see the effects of such a way of life and thinking and be made to change such a debauched life.
A libertarian system, by removing various subsidies for irresponsible behaviour, would tend to reduce incidences of such behaviour. It wouldn't "force" anybody to behave responsibly - merely make them face the actual consequences of their choices, something that a government is evidently and predictably, failing to do.
There may be a reply to this along the lines of "people should be free to do whatever they want", but lets face it, even in democratic systems, only a certain level of freedom exists, even in a state of anarchy; you would be perpetually forced to abide by a popular consensus or the rules of nature.
People should be free to do whatever they want as long as they don't violate other people's rights. That caveat makes members of a libertarian society much less susceptible to the influence of the majority.
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.