A friend recently described himself as a 19th
century libertarian.
Such an observation demanded some research for this fellow is a sociable, likeable, community minded, not at all individualistic as success in the modern seems to demand and so does not equate at all with the popular conception of someone who has such beliefs.
As an incredibly reasonable, thoughtful and generous man, who always exhibits
fairness and concern for the social equality of his fellows, my friend’s values
appeared at odds with the popular understanding of a libertarian.
However, and interestingly, the traits he exhibits sit comfortably with those who align themselves with libertarianism, at least libertarianism of the classic variety.
Libertarians of all stripes are somewhat uncomfortable with government intervention and yet, strangely, they see something of a limited role for such an authority provided it does not impinge upon the liberty of individuals, either intentionally or through an unintended consequence.
Those who claim the title of “libertarian” are as different in content as they are in action, but broadly they are “classic libertarians” (such as my friend), “hard” and “neo-libertarians”.
They are suspicious of governments and yet they are equally wary of the behaviour or market, and yet they argue for a truly free market, one that is not influenced or favoured by governmental decisions.
Interestingly, some libertarians find a certain comfort in several anarchical ideals for while anarchy has a fearfully bad reputation it really means, historically, “without government” an idea that meshes with many endorsed by libertarians.
Critics of libertarians might argue that philosophies they pursue and endorse concern only the “big-end of town”, but for someone truly aligned to the libertarian cause would deny that and argue for equality and fairness, both in social and hierarchical terms, and in economic dealings.
However, the troubles of life are frequently beyond tightly held political and religious beliefs as exampled by the recent bushfires that engulfed parts of Tasmania.
As many eyeballed tragedy with homes, property, and their lives, in the path of the advancing blaze, it is unlikely anyone questioned their political or religious beliefs as they negotiated themselves around that difficulty.
Some may have found comfort in religious beliefs later, but it seems improbable they would have been would have been front of mind at the height of the fires, when the needs of sheer survival would have clearly supplanted those interests, just as political fancies would have been equally remote.
Such an observation demanded some research for this fellow is a sociable, likeable, community minded, not at all individualistic as success in the modern seems to demand and so does not equate at all with the popular conception of someone who has such beliefs.
 |
| Tasmania's fires. |
However, and interestingly, the traits he exhibits sit comfortably with those who align themselves with libertarianism, at least libertarianism of the classic variety.
Libertarians of all stripes are somewhat uncomfortable with government intervention and yet, strangely, they see something of a limited role for such an authority provided it does not impinge upon the liberty of individuals, either intentionally or through an unintended consequence.
Those who claim the title of “libertarian” are as different in content as they are in action, but broadly they are “classic libertarians” (such as my friend), “hard” and “neo-libertarians”.
They are suspicious of governments and yet they are equally wary of the behaviour or market, and yet they argue for a truly free market, one that is not influenced or favoured by governmental decisions.
Interestingly, some libertarians find a certain comfort in several anarchical ideals for while anarchy has a fearfully bad reputation it really means, historically, “without government” an idea that meshes with many endorsed by libertarians.
Critics of libertarians might argue that philosophies they pursue and endorse concern only the “big-end of town”, but for someone truly aligned to the libertarian cause would deny that and argue for equality and fairness, both in social and hierarchical terms, and in economic dealings.
However, the troubles of life are frequently beyond tightly held political and religious beliefs as exampled by the recent bushfires that engulfed parts of Tasmania.
As many eyeballed tragedy with homes, property, and their lives, in the path of the advancing blaze, it is unlikely anyone questioned their political or religious beliefs as they negotiated themselves around that difficulty.
Some may have found comfort in religious beliefs later, but it seems improbable they would have been would have been front of mind at the height of the fires, when the needs of sheer survival would have clearly supplanted those interests, just as political fancies would have been equally remote.
Unfolding dilemmas facing the earth; the collision of
burgeoning population, energy scarcity and a worsening climate, demand we
re-consider the status of personal ideologies.
The politics of tomorrow just simply has to be different from what exists for what we have is more about answering wants, rather than peoples’ true needs.
The politics of tomorrow just simply has to be different from what exists for what we have is more about answering wants, rather than peoples’ true needs.
