For years, I've noticed the more refined "libertarian-leaning" elites out there have claimed to be, not libertarians, but "classical liberals". This may be to distinguish themselves from the unwashed masses like me.
Once upon a time, I felt a little guilty that I couldn't be part of that elite. I eventually came to accept that it simply isn't possible. I don't fit.
I can't be a "classical liberal" because I don't accept any justification for political governance. Ever. Politics makes people stupid.
Sure, maybe it's better to be a "classical liberal" than to be fully on board with whatever police state dystopia the pro-government extremists lust for. Still, it's a matter of degree, not a difference in kind. Once you accept just a little political governance, how will you stop it from growing out of your control? History has shown that you can't. Or won't.
How liberal-- in the antique sense of the word-- can you be when you still advocate stealing "just a little" to prop up your "minimal government"? "Just a little slavery" to empower the "night watchman" state? Even if this "minimum state" doesn't immediately do what political governments naturally do and metastasize out of control. Supporting such a state of affairs doesn't seem generous/liberal; it seems greedy and self-centered to me. They want "just a little" government so badly they'll sacrifice your liberty to have it.
No "classical liberalism" for me! It relies too heavily on politics.
-
Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
