I know this video comes from America, but I think Western Europeans would do well to take a look at it: [video=youtube;e6Kc0UOHABc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6Kc0UOHABc[/video] It's called Libertarianism. It basically says the government does a poor job at micro-managing people's lives, that government bureaucrats are often incompetent, and the endless regulations are a lot of trouble and cause all sorts of unintended consequences. They do not advocate for anarchy, just less government. When the government decides, it's usually a cookie-cutter one size fits all approach. They cannot keep track of all the specific situations in each individuals life. Who is better suited to decide what trade-offs are best ? An enlightened politician, or you, the one who actually knows the specific circumstances and problems in your own life? Are we just going to make it another political issue every time another government law causes problems? For example, if people are complaining about poor quality of light in their own homes, should they really have to launch a political campaign to get their problems solved, or should they just be allowed to go to the store and decide for themselves which lighting solution best fits their needs? All too often, governments seize on problems to just consolidate even more control over people's daily lives. I am not asking you to become libertarians. I am just asking you to consider whether there are ways to incorporate libertarian principles into your own political beliefs. For example, if you believe wealth should be transferred from the wealthy to those in need, might it not be better to just hand them the money, rather than have politicians inefficiently use the money on some big expensive project designed to help them, hiring all sorts of people whose presence does not actually do much to help these people in need? Politicians spend and spend, and there is never enough money. Does anyone see the problem here? It might be because the bureaucrats cannot keep track of what the most appropriate things to spend the money on actually are.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." — C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock, p. 292
I honestly don't ever see Libertarianism coming to Europe ever. Especially not Northern Europe. I'm Libertarian living in Sweden at the moment and man when we get onto the subject of politics here they all think I'm crazy. In fact I can't think of anything from Libertarianism that could ever work or be embraced in this country. Different society I suppose. I find that the Swede's are all very trusting in their government which is the polar opposite where in America no one trusts a politician.
Thanks but NO , NEVER principles that maintain social stratification are only suitable for insects bailing out useless lazy bankster losers I mostly like how you avoid posting that corporations are people.
There are more of us than you think. However, those who are uninformed just go along with whatever they are being fed.
Well I have never met another like minded person in Europe yet. It'd be cool if I found someone with like minded views while I am here. But I think the person above, Mutmekep more or less got the majority and the spirit of Europe over all.
Libertarianism is the ideology to give full power to corporations. I hope that this ideology never arrives to Europe. Is pure tyranny, in the end. Libertarianism is based in classic liberalism, and that libertarians have not learnt of the mistakes of liberalism. What we have today is the corruption of Liberalism.
What about just libertarianism for the small individual and consumer ? Just because we have work place regulations does not mean people should not be able to decide what type of light bulb they want.
I always vote for the party that's the most libertarian on issues that matter to me. In the UK that's UKIP and it's gaining support here.
Libertarianism is basically Anarchism that includes individual property rights. The Anarchists could never reconcile the notion of maximizing individual freedom and liberty with the individual right to own property and the Libertarians cannot either. While the Libertarians embrace broad individual freedom and liberty and an unlimited right to individual property they have no thinking at all on the resolution of conflicts between individual liberty and private property. The Anarchists abandoned the notion of private property rights long ago because it is inherently contradictory with individual freedom and liberty. Libertarians adopt a position of deliberate ignorance to the inherently contradictory nature of their position.
there always will be some form of social stratification in society mostly because ability is never equal between people. Corporations are legal persons that isn't really disputed, much of the reasoning behind this is simple like the ability to sue corporations is a part of the legal status of them.
There is actually quite a bit of dispute over the legal person hood of corporations. Corporations are not subject to the same liabilities and obligations as individual persons because they are entirely arbitrary entities granted by the whims of the state. As such they can be subject to whatever conditions the state chooses to put upon them irregardless of whatever rights it grants to real persons. The state and can consider them persons for the purpose of pursuing legal cases by statute but that does not automatically grant them all other personal freedoms liberties and rights. The freedoms liberties and rights of corporations must be explicitly defined through the legal statutes that govern corporations, barring that, they do not exist. They cannot be inferred from the rights granted to the people.
