Entry 2384, on 2025-01-30 at 13:15:28 (Rating 2, Politics)
Sometimes people can be quite surprised, or even shocked, at some of my political positions. I work in a university, so extreme leftists ideas, which appear to originate from a place of naivety and ideological idealism, seem to predominate, which makes any other position, including anything which is even moderately right, seem extreme in the opposite direction.
The philosophical basis for my politics is the pursuit of optimal freedom. I'm not an anarchist who wants a complete lack of government control, because I recognise that it can be necessary in some situations, but I do want to minimise the influence other people, especially governments, have on me.
In the past, more left-oriented governments seemed to offer the best option for freedom of speech, and moderate control of society for the greater good, but that has changed, and now it seems to be the right which takes freedom more seriously.
There are two types (at least) of right politics though: conservatism and libertarianism, and many of the beliefs of those two groups differ, although there is significant overlap as well. I tend to identify more with libertarianism than conservatism, although I do agree with many aspects of both, and other political perspectives as well.
So I can see some merit in libertarianism, conservatism, socialism, nationalism, and environmentalism. Actually, the only party in New Zealand I couldn't vote for is the Maori Party, because they are just a bunch of irrational, racist extremists, with no redeeming merit I can identify at this point. And currently the Greens have gone too far down the path towards a disturbing blend of environmentalist, woke-ism, and Marxism, so currently I couldn't vote for them either, although I did in the past when they were more moderate.
It would be quite bizarre if I found one party which fitted by beliefs perfectly, because then in what way would I be an individual? Could I have identical beliefs to a party and still claim to be thinking for myself? I don't think so.
At the last election I voted for New Zealand's libertarian party, Act, because that was the best fit at the time, but that won't necessarily always be the case. I see myself as a pragmatic libertarian. I think many of the basic principles behind that political position are good, but there are exceptions, so I am pragmatic and accept that sometimes different ideas, even those which seem completely contrary, are needed.
Libertarianism emphasises the need for individual freedom and responsibility, but no one (at least no truly thoughtful person) thinks that can be achieved absolutely. When I, utilising my freedom, significantly affect another person then my actions need limitations. When the ultimate outcome of individuals working for their own benefit results in a worse situation for the majority, then individuality has failed and top-down control might be necessary.
But controls over the individual should be a last resort, where no other options are available. The left generally favour rules and regulations, and plenty of them. They favour committees and government organisations to impose control from the top. As I said, sometimes this is necessary, but it should be minimised, and if the initial purpose for an organisation is no longer relevant, then that organisation should be shut down.
In the US currently, there is a push to disestablish many of the government institutions. The new president has a group called DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) which is tasked with reducing the number of institutions which currently exist (and before you ask, yes, I do recognise the irony in creating a government group to reduce the number of government groups). No one seems to know how many of these organisations there are currently, or how many people they employee, but the number seems to be in the 400 to 500 range, with potentially millions of employees.
Reducing the number of organisations of this type does seem to be a good idea, because they are costing the taxpayer a fortune to run while reducing their freedoms and stifling innovation and progress, at least allegedly.
As I said above, I am not an absolutist on this subject, so I think some government organisations are needed, but I think the default position should be to not have one unless it is absolutely essential. The current attitude amongst many is that more is always better. That seems unlikely.
The same applies to the rules, regulations, laws, and policies many of these organisations create. They say ignorance of the law is no excuse, but no one can know every law (and that's not even considering other forms of rules) and even if they did, many laws are open to interpretation. I say let's concentrate on quality rather than quantity, and make the law something that can reasonably be understood and followed by the majority of citizens.
You might say it will never happen, but every despotic regime eventually is overthrown, even when the possibility of that seems small. Senior politicians in Europe were laughing about the possibility of the demise of the USSR the day before the Berlin Wall came down. Many people were absolutely confident Kamala Harris would be the next president the day before the election. Many people in New Zealand were shocked by the resignation of Jacinda Ardern.
Freedom is important. Maybe it's all that really matters, especially when we interpret the word in the wider context. How do we achieve it? Through pragmatic libertarianism, I say!
There are no comments for this entry.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE
