A logical basis for limited government...
As I discussed in the rational basis for individual expression[more commonly known as individual liberty], that since every person lives for themselves and thus are responsible for themselves, no over-arching authority or hierarchy should retain control over individual expression.
This extends not only into one's act of being, but into the other means of expression through economics, contractual, and association.
The expression of individuality through one's economics is diverse; from what you purchase to what you sell, being skills, property and commodity. Individual economic liberty is necessary since each person lives for their own values and means of expression, thusly, each person needs an avenue to retain control over their own expression[and values] through economic independence; not only economic independence from a government, but also from other persons. Whenever a person is subject to the whims of others beyond contractual arrangements and free association, then all free actions are repressed. This can come in the form of street 'people' hustling you for your money despite having no moral basis to give it to them[such as loan sharks, pimps, and even sugardaddies(to an extent)]. Even friends and family can extort a person form their money, thus limiting their economic freedom. Specifically, this can come in the guise if a 'needed loan' or something 'promised' yet never codified verbally or written. Luckily, such situations have limited reach or expression, leaving the person being subjected to such tyrannies to decide whether to allow it or resolve it.
The oppression of economic liberty via the government is far more pernicious since the uniform use of force, shackling every person under the whim of the heads of the government, is ever present. Through licensing fees, taxes, and permits the government imposes on economic liberty of individuals, limiting their means to suceed from their own skills, whether they are an employee or an employer. The use of force to limit economic liberty is no different than the use of force to ensure dissenting views are limited, result from both is always the same: tyranny.
The liberty to freely associate is necessary for economic liberty to thrive, thus government needs to be excluded from this domain as well. When one is allowed to associate freely, then one is able to find new contacts be it friends or business parteners to grow economically. The freedom to associate with customers who are not under threat of force by the government or other individuals are capable to develop economic ties more easily, being that such individuals are able to figure the best for themselves. Also, the freedom of association allows businesspersons to seek parteners for new ventures, meaning it is possible for the best kinds of associations to form[be it of skills, capital, or a combination of the two].
Finally, the freedom to form contracts[or arrangements] is the necessary social 'glue' between individuals. It allows for people to agree to particular rules to abide without use of force, thus not limiting any arrangement to some universal ideal of what law/rules should be. In fact, the average person has contracts that decide what roles s/he has within particular situations. Be it at work, or at school, there are contracts governing behavior without the use of thuggish force[or force at all] to enforce it. There are even economic/social 'boones' to following contracts, either it being a monitary bonus to your currently agreed sum, or social ties are formed with other non-contractual-sharing persons thus allowing a person to arrange other contracts in the future more easily than would be without have any prior knowledge of said person(s).
In conclusion, it's clear that government doesn't ensure any improvement in the way of life for any individual considering how often less government or limited government could lead to allowing good people to do good deeds[this is not assuming vigilantism]. Government does not lead to ordered wealthy and free behavior, it only leads to constriction of such.
-- Bridget
This extends not only into one's act of being, but into the other means of expression through economics, contractual, and association.
The expression of individuality through one's economics is diverse; from what you purchase to what you sell, being skills, property and commodity. Individual economic liberty is necessary since each person lives for their own values and means of expression, thusly, each person needs an avenue to retain control over their own expression[and values] through economic independence; not only economic independence from a government, but also from other persons. Whenever a person is subject to the whims of others beyond contractual arrangements and free association, then all free actions are repressed. This can come in the form of street 'people' hustling you for your money despite having no moral basis to give it to them[such as loan sharks, pimps, and even sugardaddies(to an extent)]. Even friends and family can extort a person form their money, thus limiting their economic freedom. Specifically, this can come in the guise if a 'needed loan' or something 'promised' yet never codified verbally or written. Luckily, such situations have limited reach or expression, leaving the person being subjected to such tyrannies to decide whether to allow it or resolve it.
The oppression of economic liberty via the government is far more pernicious since the uniform use of force, shackling every person under the whim of the heads of the government, is ever present. Through licensing fees, taxes, and permits the government imposes on economic liberty of individuals, limiting their means to suceed from their own skills, whether they are an employee or an employer. The use of force to limit economic liberty is no different than the use of force to ensure dissenting views are limited, result from both is always the same: tyranny.
The liberty to freely associate is necessary for economic liberty to thrive, thus government needs to be excluded from this domain as well. When one is allowed to associate freely, then one is able to find new contacts be it friends or business parteners to grow economically. The freedom to associate with customers who are not under threat of force by the government or other individuals are capable to develop economic ties more easily, being that such individuals are able to figure the best for themselves. Also, the freedom of association allows businesspersons to seek parteners for new ventures, meaning it is possible for the best kinds of associations to form[be it of skills, capital, or a combination of the two].
Finally, the freedom to form contracts[or arrangements] is the necessary social 'glue' between individuals. It allows for people to agree to particular rules to abide without use of force, thus not limiting any arrangement to some universal ideal of what law/rules should be. In fact, the average person has contracts that decide what roles s/he has within particular situations. Be it at work, or at school, there are contracts governing behavior without the use of thuggish force[or force at all] to enforce it. There are even economic/social 'boones' to following contracts, either it being a monitary bonus to your currently agreed sum, or social ties are formed with other non-contractual-sharing persons thus allowing a person to arrange other contracts in the future more easily than would be without have any prior knowledge of said person(s).
In conclusion, it's clear that government doesn't ensure any improvement in the way of life for any individual considering how often less government or limited government could lead to allowing good people to do good deeds[this is not assuming vigilantism]. Government does not lead to ordered wealthy and free behavior, it only leads to constriction of such.
-- Bridget
posted by Lady Attis at 7:54 AM
1 comments
