![\"Enhanced](\"http:\/\/img.zemanta.com\/zemified_e.png?x-id=2c21fc64-3ffa-4075-b0f3-9dacfc9969ad\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>
For some strange reason, there are a lot of active, humanistic, atheists who consider themselves Libertarians. In one sense, I get it. Libertarianism sounds great on paper (like communism), but once you put any type of real thought into it, it becomes silly.<\/p>\n
On paper, Libertarianism is all about individual freedom. How can anyone be against that? Who is seriously going to argue against freedom? But it isn\u2019t the freedom part I have a problem with, it is the individual part.<\/p>\n
Sure, we could go Full Monte Libertarian in our society and grow our own food, weave our own clothing, do our own dentistry, and be completely self-sufficient and free. There would be no government restricting pollution (because no individual could pollute enough anyway) and there would be no law. It would be the perfect Libertarian paradise. The thought of it alone would make Ron Paul ejaculate.<\/p>\n
But as a humanist, who loves science, reason, and logic, I think it would be better to have an actual society. It would be better for people to work together to form a government by the people to provide for the general welfare of everyone. Now, doing that Full Monte isn\u2019t good either. That would be strict Communism where the state directs our lives completely. Instead of government providing for the people, the people provide for the government. But isn\u2019t there a middle ground?<\/p>\n
Yeah, it is what we got now. It is the delicate balance of trying to maximize individual liberty in an actual society in which governments provides some important services for the people. What should government do and what should individuals do for themselves?<\/p>\n
These aren\u2019t easy questions. Some regulations are important, like government regulations on pollution, food and product standards, etc. Some regulations like who can legally be allowed to marry, what drugs and unhealthy foods people can knowingly take, and what sex acts can be performed with your consenting partner(s) in the bed are not things that government ought to be regulating.<\/p>\n
Capitalism is great, but government still has the important job of protecting people from the abuses of Capitalism. When wealth gets concentrated into the hands of the few at the expense of the general welfare of society, then the government needs to step in to protect the people from becoming de facto slaves of the wealthy.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, right now the wealthy have bought to government and the job of the government has ceased to provide for the general welfare and has instead become to provide for the wealthy alone at the expense of the general public.<\/p>\n
It isn\u2019t that there is too much regulation as Libertarians claim; it is that there isn\u2019t the right kind of regulation. The best way to navigate through the role of government is to remember that governments are instituted by men [and women (except apparently when it comes to women\u2019s health of course)] to provide for the general welfare of the people.<\/p>\n