http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/us/politics/presidential-race-pits-government-against-business.html?_r=1
I've often wondered if we could distill the statist viewpoint and the laissez-faire viewpoint into non-partisan terms, devoid of the usual rancor. Of all media treatments of this discord, I think this belongs in the hall of fame. And it's published in the Gray Lady, of all sources. Wonders never cease.
While I definitely agree with the idea "both sides" should "wake up" and take on their common enemy (statism), it's unlikely in the extreme.
Far too many (
examples abound on this very board) who espouse laissez-faire about economics and RKBA, are adamantly opposed to certain social freedoms and rights and are 100$ OK with the .gov repressing those things they feel are "wrong". And arguments about politics where economic and gun rights are absolute, but arguments that people also should be free to do with their bodies as they wish, or marry whoever they want, even on a "
You don't have to like it, just recognize the .gov with the power to enforce those things is arguably WORSE than the people doing them for all of us."-basis... quickly dissolves into rancor.
And on the opposite side, the people who are interested in chemical, sexual, and other personal freedoms, are largely opposed to economic freedom, or RKBA. Or if they're indifferent to them, and not active enemies, they've generally all thrown in their lots with those who are.
And the folks who do cross these boundaries, they're still generally not invested enough in the "other" side of these things to add to the numbers that might impact public policy on them. Someone who advocates for free markets and RKBA, and is sympathetic to drug legalization and gay rights... well, it's hard enough as it is to find the time in living my life and supporting my family to fight for the first two. I'm not going to find any time, or much enthusiasm to fight for the second two. Beyond that, it's difficult to figure out how to support those second two rights without supporting people who are enemies of mine on the issue of the first two rights.
Micro is one of the few posters here who does seem willing to really try and throw his effort behind ALL forms of personal freedom and is actively opposed to all forms of Statism. However, his level, his ratio of representation here, one out of a hundred-odd active posters on APS, is probably about right for that of the world at large too.
Everyone says "stop voting for the lesser of two evils" as the answer to the political Catch-22 liberty-minded voters are put into, but it begs one BIG question. WHAT IF THEY'RE WRONG? What if the "third-way" politician does not have a chance, and you really are "throwing away" your vote? What if it is all going to hell in a handbasket anyway, and I'm better off voting for economic and RKBA freedoms while I can, because gay rights and the ability to smoke a joint on the weekend won't get me through SHTF, when bullets and gold will?
My honest hope is that technology and new social orders (the Internet, nanotechnology, matter printers, post-scarcity) will allow for a shadow society and shadow economy, where people (most of them) live as they wish, and practice the "golden rule", that one day we wake up and find out it's simply is larger and has more strength than the "real" .gov and economy, that it obsoletes it and forces a state of Libertarian minarchy on the world. Imagine, one day going to Washington D.C. and the people most of the Federal buildings are just park rangers and re-enactors, like they are at Colonial Williamsburg...
For right now, my political calculus keeps me voting for the party of gold and guns. I figure if someone comes for my gay neighbor who smokes marijuana, to pack him and his partner off into the cattle cars, I've got the option of shooting back.
