For this blog’s inaugural post, I think it’s appropriate to address the basics.
On one side, you have the perception that government can solve all social ills. Indeed, while there are legitimate and vital roles for government oversight and assistance (my list is six: safety, health, trust, education, infrastructure and access), one must be careful not to impose legislation or taxation - regardless of how well-meaning it may be - without taking into account at least one of those criteria.
On another side, is the persistent notion that government should serve as an arbiter of morality and virtue, “family values,” if you will. Indeed, such things are of extreme importance in any well-functioning society, but these functions best left to those institutions equipped to deal with them, such as family, friends and faith. Because government is by definition all-encompassing, while things like values are not, it is antithetical to freedom to apply government to values. They are called family values for a reason, not “government values” or “state values.”
Indeed, I believe this philosophy applied to reviewing existing legislation and considering new legislation is the basic philosophy that a “small-l libertarian” should take towards public policy. I say “small-l” because this is not a discourse about the Libertarian Party in any sense.
Regardless of political persuasion, most people in elected positions are extremely eager to pass some law to cure some real or perceived ill. However, libertarians will undoubtedly find themselves opposing much more legislation than they support.
None of this is new. In fact, it’s the essence of the classical liberalism espoused by such luminaries as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and Thomas Jefferson, as well as later figures such as William Proxmire.
The party best able to champion truly limited government in 21st Century America in general - and in Idaho in particular - is the Democratic Party. Republicans have talked about this for years, but in practice they’ve advocated “government values” time and time again, and also spent this country further into debt than any that has preceded us. “Big-L” Libertarians have had the opportunity to assume the role, but for a variety of reasons have failed miserably, and I daresay permanently.
The time has come to champion true freedom once again.
G’morning, and congratudolences on your new binford 2000 timewaster, with turbocharger. Looking forward to watching it progress.
Congrats, Lane.
I am still not sure what the difference is between small-l libertarian Democrats and regular garden-variety Dems, but here’s a question for you that may help me understand.
Where do you stand on government funding for the arts and humanities? In a Startin admin, would we still have an Idaho Commission on the Arts and Idaho Commission on the Humanities? On the national level, do you support the NEA and NEH? Please answer and explain your reasoning one way or another.
I believe arts and humanities fall under the general scope of education, so in that sense I do support a modest investment in such programs in the public sector and the continued existence of the commissions you mention. That said, it’s not an area I consider a priority in the grand scheme of things, nor something I’d drastically increase funding on. My views on the national level would be pretty much the same.
I’d be much more concerned with facilitating a legal environment that allows the arts and humanities to flourish in the private sector. Indeed, that’s a very important reason to oppose state censorship right there.
OK. Thanks for that. This sort of thing is on my mind as we prepare to pay a HUGE tax bill next month (mostly due to my underestimating my quarterly payments as a self-employed person). I don’t mind paying the taxes so much as what they’re currently funding. And I agree that arts and humanities do fall under education. Ditto public broadcasting. I am happy to support such things as a member, but I believe they also deserve some public subsidy - and that the subsidy shouldn’t carry any First Amendment restrictions.
3 main posts, a link on 43sb and a few comments later… “good tea, nice house.”
The Left Liberals and the Right Conservatives both tend to cherry pick what parts of the Bill of Rights (and the rest of the Constitution) to emphasize and support. I’d like to think, at least for myself, that as Freedom Democrats we see them all as vital.