Methinks an ideal (ha!) society would operate more like an eco-system of different governing forms ... at all scales. The more diverse [in terms of systems] the better.
So, feudalism?
I think its best to consider markets and governments as parts of a spectrum of human group behavior. Theft and extortion are illegal, but tax collection is not? What's the difference? If a civilian paramilitary organization gets big enough or armed enough, it becomes the de facto government. So the mob of the better-armed majority determines whether or not they will collect taxes and enforce rules on the dissenting minority.
Thinking this way makes it much easier to parse that some problems are best solved by limiting government involvement, but many are not. Ideology is not reality. Thinking otherwise leads to cognitive dissonance.
What I mean is there are different optimal governing systems for different situations and scales.
For example, the family unit works better under socialism (=communism in European semantics); the distribution of surplus consumer goods works better under capitalism; national defense works better under authoritarianism; justice works better in a republic; very local government (<Dunbar number) works better under direct democracy; larger areas better under representative democracy; ... and so on.
To have a robust world-system, I think it's imperative that all such systems are allowed to thrive for the kind of problem solving they do best. This is what I mean by a diverse ecological system of "governing"-forms. From a general systems-perspective, I think there's a lot of problematic effects if one system takes over and becomes the dominant paradigm for all issues.
In case it wasn't clear ... I mean the word "governing"(*) in its most abstract [cybernetic] sense: a regulating control mechanism for the underlying [sub-]system.
(*) The mechanism with the two spinning balls that controls a steam engine is called a governor for example. The steam engine might be part of a railroad train. Various other parts of the train would have other kinds of governors for other parts. The brakes would be operated by a lever+human, for example.
To have a robust world-system, I think it's imperative that all such systems are allowed to thrive for the kind of problem solving they do best. This is what I mean by a diverse ecological system of "governing"-forms. From a general systems-perspective, I think there's a lot of problematic effects if one system takes over and becomes the dominant paradigm for all issues.
+1
This is why I dislike set ideologies, as they always drift towards the extreme. A prime example is Norquist's organization Americans for Tax Reform creating the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which makes politicians say they will never raise any tax ever. This is, of course, ridiculous over any extended time frame, which is at 29 years.
In reality, many policies should be changing consistently over multiple year time frames. For instance, economic policy should generally swing from moderate Keynesian to moderate Austrian depending on what is going on with the economy. Extremes either way should be a rarity. These would have probably been the Great Depression and Recession for slightly more extreme Keynesian policies and slightly more extreme Austrian policies should have occurred after WWII. This mostly occurred for the Depression and after WWII. Though, not after the Great Recession, which is why we are still talking about infrastructure and tax reform 7-8 years later.
I used to consider myself a pretty dyed-in-the-wool libertarian but have started pulling away on *some* fronts from that in recent years both because of practical AND emotional reasons.
When it comes to personal freedoms (guns, privacy, etc.), I'd still consider myself about as libertarian as they come. However, since having kids I've become so aghast at the idea of anyone's kid being hurt and not getting care that I'm leaning towards nationalized health care even though I still think it'd be more expensive and less efficient than a free market solution. Plus, the fact that ~40%+ of the population is already ON government healthcare, and a huge portion of the rest gets subsidized healthcare via the ACA, means that it's actually a much smaller change than it sounds.
But I'm open to any >90% libertarians who can convince me that an all-private-school system would work better.
The self-identified libertarians I know distinguish between federal control and state/local control. I believe most would be supportive of taxpayer-funded schools operated strictly on the state or local level without any federal interference. Maybe you could call them constitutional libertarians rather than pure libertarians.
brute believes the idea of "moderatism" or "balance" is a spook and meaningless at best. just like when humans claim the ideal human diet is "a balanced diet". it's so vacuous a concept that it escapes any real definition, all humans interpret what they want into it, and it's just generally a terrible non-idea.
I came out 67%, which is maybe a little higher than I expected, and I think it had to do with some of the questions covering too broad of a scope--I didn't feel "good" about maybe 5-6 of the questions and the answers I had to give.
@scriptbunny, I understand your question was one because you prefer liberal-progressive outcomes, but it comes off as an unfair question. Kind of like a libertarian saying "I'm open to a democrat to explain to me how their gun control regulations will open up free and unfettered gun ownership." The words of the question make sense, but it comes off as a non-sequitur.
As an aside, I don't know many libertarians (vs. anarcho-capitalists) who don't support some form of public schooling these days. I personally prefer a private/public/charter school system funded by school voucher systems, forcing public schools to compete rather than existing as a union-protected, state-employed government mouthpiece that has our childrens' ears for 9 hours a day, 250 days a year.
I got 63%. I harbor similar reservations to what @jacob outlined. I suspect my enthusiasm for libertarianism will continue to decline as I learn more about the world through observing reality. Lots of wonderful ideas in theory but reality is harsh and just how much money/power corrupts continues to amaze me.
Now I'm only 33% libertarian LOL. What a change!! People make too many stupid choices for libertarianism to work. I have become much more hedonistic recent years, and think it's OK with some gov regulations if that increases mankind's (and animals'!) overall happiness.
0%. But I feel like I answered the "libertarian" way for a number of these questions: businesses should be allowed to fail, sex work between consenting adults should be legalized, gay marriage shouldn't be treated differently, abolish the monarchy, drugs should be decriminalized, no state-based religious privilege, assisted suicide should be legal.
Either I don't understand libertarian dogma or the bar on this quiz is weirdly high.