Libertarians have this quant notion that there should be as little government intervention as possible to maximise freedom. If they're religiously inclined, they won't hesitate to claim it as their god-given right to be free from government meddling. But instead of accepting the logical extension of that, namely a "society" without government or laws, they insist that a smallish government is a necessary evil to maintain god-given, natural rights.Originally Posted by Furunculus
This position is contradictory, because it acknowledges that an artificial construct (the state) is necessary to garantue rights and freedoms they consider "natural" (property rights and basic rights such as life, etc). They extend this fallacious argument further by maintaining that any extra government interference is not natural, and is in fact "authoritarian" or "collectivist".
One could draw an ambiguous distinction between "negative" liberty and "positive" liberty.
Negative liberty means being free to act without interference from others. Typical examples are freedom of speech and property rights.
Positive liberty is a "younger" concept, it's achieved by actively providing services. Upper-class philosophers from the 17th century and libertarians born with a silver spoon up their butt can easily argue that being free means being left to yourself. Someone who's born in a slum would argue that he's not free as long as he's starving and unable to get an education.
The distinction between positive and negative is ambiguous because freedom from interference can't exist without active government meddling. You're not free to say what you want, and you can't hang on to your possessions if there are no laws and law enforcements to protect you.
About the topic: most continental European countries feel that the state has an obligation to provide decent education for everyone. Home schooling is illegal in Germany (and the Neth's), with few exceptions possible, because it's not practical or even doable to garantue said standards of educations to children who are kept home and have their amateur parents as teachers. I can agree to disagree on this particular issue, but declaring this to be a human rights issue is outrageous. These parents have some nerve to think that they're entitled to the same status as refugees from dictatorships and warzones![]()
Bookmarks