Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint
Based on the above, it seems to me that the logical extension is that every other person (including yourself) is no more qualified to dictate how others should be governed. A fair solution to mitigate the effects of this would be to have less government intervention--of any kind--in peoples' lives. By this method, your potentially wrong ideas are not imposed upon others, and their potentially wrong ideas are not imposed upon you. This is the basis of what people mean when you hear them say "small government." Also known as "liberty."
|
I agree, on social issues. I disagree on economic issues, as I am a "Sandersite socialist" (Sanders as in Bernie of course) and believe that it is part of the social contract that the wealthy, who came to their wealth in the framework of government support, should then be expected to pay higher taxes that then go to ensuring a basic minimum standard of living for all Americans that's somewhere above poverty. I find the logical argument that you have no more right to tell me how to live than i do to tell you how to live to be persuasive; i don't find the argument that it logically follows that therefore the poor should be left to suffer without a strong, modern, more-than-the-poverty-level safety net to be persuasive.
I'm sure my socially-libertarian streak comes both from my rebellious and anti-authority childhood, and from my sexuality and gender variance, and surely my view that it's a moral imperative to make sure people don't starve, or die from curable disease, or live in squalor, also comes from some deeper childhood moral teachings, unless I really have utterly rejected the way i was raised in favor of coming to my own conclusions about the world like all young'uns want to believe they have. But why does that make my beliefs about the role of government more or less valid?