A New Political Philosophy: Limitarianism
This may not be as original as I think it is, but after listening to a lot of podcast on politics (thanks to the Dispatch media folks) I've decided we need to replace libertarianism and conservatism with a new word, limitarianism.
The key here is limited, but not in limited rights for people like me. I mean limited:
government intrusion in our lives
limited expectation for the government to solve problems
taxes for things that don't help the public good
help to those who don't deserve it
illegal immigration
This is a little tongue in cheek; the list runs intentionally from reasonable to fanatical. Or maybe not. There are many times I have wanted to vote libertarian, and have when so opposed to the two options I was given, but I could never call myself a libertarian. Their policies on drugs is ridiculous and even worse, too important to them. Check out their websites: the first issue is usually marijuana legalization. Is that what I'm supposed to care about most?
A libertarian would also allow, philosophically, abortions at all levels, unless they accept that the unborn has all the right to life and liberty someone outside the womb does. On this point, some libertarian do, some don't. The issue is too important for me to fudge on, although I would consider leaving abortion laws as they are if the government gave absolutely no money to fund abortions or advocate them or push them on women.
As a conservative, I think we expect too much from the government (we didn't need a $2400 stimulus check) and for the feds to solve our problems instead of taking personal responsibility. If we practiced limitarianism in our personal finances, we would be better off.
So I think my philosophy should take off for the next election. Except that it doesn't promise anyone anything but their lives back.
P.S. Just watched a Dennis Prager video where he asserts the lockdown (notice the words, lockdown, we are forcibly in prison, not shutdown, not quarantining, not self-isolation, not sheltering in place) will kill more people than the virus. That's pretty bold; I could use another word. I do think we overdid it, I will always think that, but I don't think the deaths from the economy will surpass the COVID deaths, or that either will ever be entirely measurable.
Consequently, Georgia is in the media's eye, or maybe cross hairs. One, we are the guinea pigs (and we've had a lot more cases and death than our neighboring states, because of the airport I think, and the size of Atlanta). Second, the media wants to make the governor look bad. Why? Because he beat Stacy Abrams the romance novelist, who will always say the election was stolen from her, and because of his fracas with Trump, who supported him and then pulled the rug out from under him. (Disclosure, I did not vote for Kemp; he had silly commercials.) But I support his careful reopening, and so far, ten or eleven days in, we haven't seen a spike.
The key here is limited, but not in limited rights for people like me. I mean limited:
government intrusion in our lives
limited expectation for the government to solve problems
taxes for things that don't help the public good
help to those who don't deserve it
illegal immigration
This is a little tongue in cheek; the list runs intentionally from reasonable to fanatical. Or maybe not. There are many times I have wanted to vote libertarian, and have when so opposed to the two options I was given, but I could never call myself a libertarian. Their policies on drugs is ridiculous and even worse, too important to them. Check out their websites: the first issue is usually marijuana legalization. Is that what I'm supposed to care about most?
A libertarian would also allow, philosophically, abortions at all levels, unless they accept that the unborn has all the right to life and liberty someone outside the womb does. On this point, some libertarian do, some don't. The issue is too important for me to fudge on, although I would consider leaving abortion laws as they are if the government gave absolutely no money to fund abortions or advocate them or push them on women.
As a conservative, I think we expect too much from the government (we didn't need a $2400 stimulus check) and for the feds to solve our problems instead of taking personal responsibility. If we practiced limitarianism in our personal finances, we would be better off.
So I think my philosophy should take off for the next election. Except that it doesn't promise anyone anything but their lives back.
P.S. Just watched a Dennis Prager video where he asserts the lockdown (notice the words, lockdown, we are forcibly in prison, not shutdown, not quarantining, not self-isolation, not sheltering in place) will kill more people than the virus. That's pretty bold; I could use another word. I do think we overdid it, I will always think that, but I don't think the deaths from the economy will surpass the COVID deaths, or that either will ever be entirely measurable.
Consequently, Georgia is in the media's eye, or maybe cross hairs. One, we are the guinea pigs (and we've had a lot more cases and death than our neighboring states, because of the airport I think, and the size of Atlanta). Second, the media wants to make the governor look bad. Why? Because he beat Stacy Abrams the romance novelist, who will always say the election was stolen from her, and because of his fracas with Trump, who supported him and then pulled the rug out from under him. (Disclosure, I did not vote for Kemp; he had silly commercials.) But I support his careful reopening, and so far, ten or eleven days in, we haven't seen a spike.
Comments