A level playing field, isn’t that what Libertarian policy is all about?
In terms of “growing the base” wouldn’t it be better for those libertarian voices the media or the public hear to talk about fairness as the basis for their point of view? Fairness wouldn’t accept riches as an entitlement to govern. Nor would it accept poverty, race, religion, age, testosterone levels, intelligence, place of birth or nation. ( An aside but it bugs me that we have national identity based on tribal spans of control that are hundreds (in Europe, the Americas and Asia) or thousands (in Africa and more of Asia) of years old. I know their are thousand year old cultures in Europe and the Americas, but the tribes with political power and national identity are much younger.
So much nonsense makes the news because it is so easy to make juicy video from a pulldown for the entitled, or for those hoping to fight entitlement (by gaining unstated entitlement for themselves). I’m referring to bashing billionaires for going to space, the Panama papers, the scholarship scandal, AOCs Tax the Rich dress, Senator Warren claiming childcare is a right on Seth Meyers tonight, vaccines as oppression, debt ceiling brinkmanship, etc. The easiest way to build allies or an audience is to define a common enemy.
It is acceptable in the US where I live, at least, that disadvantaged people try to flip the advantage their way – not to make things fair but to gain the upper hand. Every politician alive that I’ve met has argued for fairness when the balance tips their way and controlling chaos when it doesn’t. Our founding fathers understood this risk, but their division of powers is failing in the 21st century. SCOTUS is more aligned than ever with political policies. Each party claims debt control is important when out of power and meaningless when in. The executive office snips off more authority with each passing crisis. (Sorry, this paragraph turned into a tangent, but one I believe is important)
With one party in power, the other(s) fight this to preserve their advantage. I do understand that elected officials focus on their individual power, but those who decide who gets elected, unions Wall St media billionaires aristocrats oligarchs Title IX etc, the advantage to preserve is collective not individual. Libertarians fight this to reach fairness which neither major political cluster can accept. But I believe people individually are more interested in fairness. And fairness is fundamentally individual/personal. People exist, groups only exist in the minds of their leaders and those foolish/delusional enough to think they are leaders/stupid/weak/conditioned to follow.
I spent a lot of time on imbalance but that seems be the order of the day – “tip the scales my way”. Isn’t the “Karen” phenomenon or cancel culture just an expression of the belief that I am more worthy/important/right/central than anyone else?
Does fairness resonate? So many claim fairness as justification for unfair positions but can we agree to ask “is anyone unfairly harmed by your position?”
TLDR: You are the problem, please skip to the next post.
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society