So....a lot of traditional politics, at least as defined from the right, tends to focus on two major dichotomies. The right sees their ideas as being for the individual, while the left is for the collective. The right is for freedom, while the left is for equality. You can have one or the other, but you can't have both.
This extends from the right libertarian ideology that government action is bad. If we have no government, yes, we have no equality, but we have freedom. As the government tries to "mandate equality", it does so at the expense of freedom. The same applies to individualism or collectivism. Either we have an ideology that values peoples' individual freedoms, or we sacrifice it in the name of collectivism.
This makes sense when you view the world between libertarian capitalism vs authoritarian communism, but it really doesn't make much sense when you consider ideologies like mine.
Honestly, I support just enough collectivism to be for taking care of peoples' needs, and largely support individualism. I think that if anything, having some collectivism expands peoples' individualism. How can you be free, after all, if the state of "freedom" under right wing libertarianism subjects you to a host of private tyrannies and bosses? I dont see being forced to get up at 6 AM, put on a suit and tie, and then spend 9 hours a day in a work place to be very individualistic. If it were the state mandating that, these guys would scream bloody murder. But because you're "technically" not forced to do such things via a state, even if you have no actual freedom to negotiate your situation, that's okay in their book.
The same goes for freedom vs equality. I support programs that simply redistribute wealth or provide services, while asking as little from the populace in return. Sure, I might ask people to pay taxes, but such taxes are based on income and are "pay as you go" in a way. You earn income, you get it deducted from your paycheck. The services are a right of citizenship. I just think that if you earn wealth, that you should pay in so that everyone can have some too. Some might see that as tyrannical, as it violates their "right" to property, but property is a social convention, and a flawed one at that. The taxes are so that everyone else can be as free as they are. If property gives people freedom, then everyone should have at least enough property to be secure in their own person. We can tax wealth beyond that, and I think that's perfectly okay. For me it's not so much about removing freedom as it is about balancing the economy. Asking the most to pay in so that others can have something actually increases the overall amount of freedom out there. Sure, it's possible to go overboard, if we try too hard to mandate equality, then we destroy freedom and work incentive and yada yada, but right libs seem to think in extremes. The solutions are in the middle. There's nothing tyrannical about paying taxes on wealth you voluntarily (and i mean actually voluntary, not the pseudo voluntarism that their entire ideology is built upon) went out to work for. As I said, libertarians are weird. Taxes are slavery to them, but somehow, forcing people to work...isn't. It's weird. And backwards. Asking a millionaire to pay some taxes so people aren't forced to work for him is enslaving that billionaire, but starving everyone else so they have no choice but to work for him isn't. Again, backwards.
Honestly, my ideology expands actual freedom while also taking care of people. Again, you need to take care of people somewhat for them to be free. it's forcing people to have no choice but to work in a capitalist hellhole that is tyrannical. Yes, what the soviets and many communists and leftists did/do is also bad, I'm not disputing that. But not everyone on "the left" actually is for that stuff. Libertarian lefties want a world where everyone is actually free to live as they want without having to serve others. It's just a matter of getting there. And logistically, I support the simplest, least intrusive solutions possible.
THat's why I feel like people should trust me and my ideology. I actually put my money where my mouth is and explain exactly what I'm for, and why I'm for it, and what makes my ideas so different than what the right thinks on this situation. I have UBI plans. I have plans for healthcare. And I discuss the policy details in detail. Assuming my ideas are implemented as I advocate for them, they should provide freedom. Yes, if they're compromised and modified from how i present them here, you are free to be leery. There's good reason to read any person's proposals and actually analyze what's in them. Heck that's why I spend so much time doing that myself. And I find disagreements, even with relatively close political allies. But at least i explain where i disagree and why.
No comments:
Post a Comment