Spark This
  • Spark This
  • About This
  • Subscribe To This
  • Search This

You Got Your “Vision” in My Freedom

3/3/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
There are many "visions" out there for how society should be organized. Under an authoritarian regime, one person or small group imposes a vision on the rest of society. In a democratic country, "the people" decide who will get to impose which vision. Should "we" repair the roads or build more mass transit? Accept more immigrants or drive away those who are here? Beef up the army or train more doctors? Give welfare to single moms or to sclerotic corporations? Cast your vote, then live with the results.

Here's another vision for how to organize society: Respect people's freedom to make their own individual decisions about what to do with their time and how to spend their money. Let us exchange with each other and enter into contracts as we please. Have some organized way of dealing with domestic and foreign aggressors, either some minimal night-watchman state or competing night watchmen. Then let individuals organize themselves spontaneously, as the natural world does, without imposing anyone's top-down notions of the good society on anyone else. Let people make their own plans, as long as they're peaceful, instead of giving power to a relatively few micromanagers and forcing everyone to conform to prefabricated central plans.

According to Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson, however, the above doesn't even count as a vision. People who are suspicious of government, he wrote this past weekend, have "an aversion to any kind of 'vision' for society, because vision usually means mobilizing the resources of the state for some collective purpose." Of course, if you define away a certain kind of vision, then it's no longer a vision. But defining words to mean what you want them to mean is hardly fair, no matter what Humpty Dumpty says.

Simpson is right on the money, though, when he points out that "Thatcher's children" as he calls them—the current conservative leaders of Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand—often promise more than they deliver when it comes to shrinking the governments they claim to view with suspicion. They talk the talk, but they generally don't walk the walk. And until the libertarian vision of respect and spontaneous order is more widely appreciated, we can expect them to continue paying mere lip service to the ideas of freedom.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Who Writes This

    Bradley Doucet is a Montreal writer and the English Editor of Le Québécois Libre.

    More of This

    June 2016
    April 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013

    Even More of This

    The Limits of Power: A review of Malcolm Gladwell's David and Goliath

    Math Education Should Be Set Free

    Santa on Trial

    What Does Greenpeace Have Against Golden Rice?

    Dear Sugar Man: Does a Nation Really Need a Charter of Values?

    To Dream a Possible Dream: MLK’s Famous Speech, 50 Years Later

    The Cost of Regulation: Why It's Worth Thinking About

    Is Government a Necessary Evil? A Review of Michael Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority

    The Planned Chaos of New Orleans, LA

    The Unplanned Order of Houston, TX

    Dynamists vs. Stasists: Virginia Postrel's The Future and Its Enemies, 15 Years Later