Originally posted by frank ryan
View Post
Libertarianism shows us the benefits of personal liberties in the face of government power. This is a useful perspective, to respect the power of the collective over the rights of the individual.
Statism is a belief that the collective is powerful and will usually seek to benefit the collective good. The problem with this approach is it ignores and/or stifles innovation and promotes egalitarianism and mediocrity for large swaths of the population. It also stagnates income and socio-economic mobility.
Conservatism in the classic sense is to rail against government, to rely upon large business concerns and to empower religious entities. This philosophy stagnates change and prevents improvement, unless it is forced to, i.e., civil rights.
Anarchy is not a governing philosophy but a source of change, just usually not positive change.
Communism, totalitarianism and monarchies are not useful in the American experiment.
A philosophy that respects personal liberties, respects traditions and doesn't seek to change tradition just for the sake of change but takes advantage of the market forces while seeking public change or allows societal change to happen while fulfilling its traditional functions is a difficult one to articulate and to facilitate. But that is the philosophy that would do the most good. Who embodies this philosophy now? No politician, no party and no single political philosophy.

Leave a comment: