rip us off or worse still harm people that is nothing to do with politics but crime.
Libertarianism is a relatively new movement, especially in Britain, but comes closest to anarchism in that it questions the requirements for government at all, the main difference being it accepts there is a need but only for the most basic functions. In fact the majority of my politics is negative, fighting those who want governments to dictate how we live, as if one person has the right to tell millions what is right in the short time they are alive on this planet just on the basis of where they happen to live at the time. The rules can change a mile away of you are near a border, and why is one lot better than another?
So ultimately I am far more motivated by philosophy and any politics I express are a reflection of that, plus the point that many political opinions are based on ignorance of the facts, as if people know the true figures and details many opinions would vanish as a result. If you aren't sure of the facts then there should be no opinion, either admit you don't know or if determined then do what you can to find out the truth. But don't promote rules and regulations based on areas you have little or no knowledge on, in areas such as education, finance etc, where if you don't know the inside details directly you are simply not qualified to have an opinion. For example, certain types of school either work better than others. Unless tested over many years and assessed for every area of performance, simply advocating comprehensive or streaming is based far more on ideology than which system makes the best of everyone who goes through it. There is simply no room in areas of fact for the distorted lenses of ideology, which end up doing no more than oppress and restrict people's opportunities.
Libertarianism is a relatively new movement, especially in Britain, but comes closest to anarchism in that it questions the requirements for government at all, the main difference being it accepts there is a need but only for the most basic functions. In fact the majority of my politics is negative, fighting those who want governments to dictate how we live, as if one person has the right to tell millions what is right in the short time they are alive on this planet just on the basis of where they happen to live at the time. The rules can change a mile away of you are near a border, and why is one lot better than another?
So ultimately I am far more motivated by philosophy and any politics I express are a reflection of that, plus the point that many political opinions are based on ignorance of the facts, as if people know the true figures and details many opinions would vanish as a result. If you aren't sure of the facts then there should be no opinion, either admit you don't know or if determined then do what you can to find out the truth. But don't promote rules and regulations based on areas you have little or no knowledge on, in areas such as education, finance etc, where if you don't know the inside details directly you are simply not qualified to have an opinion. For example, certain types of school either work better than others. Unless tested over many years and assessed for every area of performance, simply advocating comprehensive or streaming is based far more on ideology than which system makes the best of everyone who goes through it. There is simply no room in areas of fact for the distorted lenses of ideology, which end up doing no more than oppress and restrict people's opportunities.
No comments:
Post a Comment