We are observing a strange phenomenon that not only affects America, but appears to be particularly pernicious in this country right now. (Before the fall of the Soviet empire, it was more pronounced in Europe.) As elections approached, each of the two main competing powers said it would be a big deal if the remaining 50% (plus 1% or something) won. I scream when something bad happens. This phenomenon has gradually intensified. Both opinions seem to be correct. Governments can become so powerful that they can seriously harm the interests and lifestyles of members of either side. No one seems to be able to ensure their freedom and safety.
While one politician promises to do nothing (slogan: “We will let you pursue peaceful activities and happiness”), the other politician actively challenges the 50% who disagree. It is not an intention to cause harm (“we will come after you”). If that were the case, we would understand that those who are actively harmed and discriminated against have good reason to cry wolf. And if we do something to help someone You may notice that there is a moral and economic difference between not doing something and actively harming someone, but this is not what is actually happening. By restricting us, we are actively harming half the population.
The spell that the new president will be everyone’s president (Of all Syldavians) is fake. You can’t be president of the whole by siding with half against the other. “What business do you have? What can I forbid or obligate you to do to please you?”
The side that loses an election, even if it’s 50%, feels threatened and angry. And here’s the most surprising thing. The losers (regardless of whether they are 49% of the population) have not concluded that the government should not have the power to harm them. No, they conclude that their candidate must win next time in order to retaliate and satisfy their claims against other tribes. From election to election, changing of the guard to the next, government power continues to grow and public dissatisfaction grows. Indeed, at least one third cannot understand what is happening and does not vote, although their freedom is alternately reduced to one third, and then to the other third. plug.
This strange phenomenon is actually explainable, especially after the advances in public choice analysis over the past 70 years. Once political authorities have gained enough power to inflict significant damage on the losing side in terms of freedom and opportunity, and once the realm of collective choice has encroached sufficiently on the realm of individual choice, politics becomes the only city in town. It becomes a game.
For centuries, classical liberals and libertarians, whose insights are now ignored, have opposed this absurd and dangerous power struggle, much like two angry wannabe queens running to usurp the throne. It has been argued that. This system fosters politicization, conflict, and injustice and represents a growing threat to prosperity and freedom. While liberals and libertarians continue to debate the precise limits of political power, their goals may be summed up in the motto: live and let me live. This is very different from competitive authoritarianism, whether democratic or not.
(Classical) Liberalism’s radical and rational, at the same time, definition of Anthony de Jasay’s “individual determination of all matters, the structure of which affords approximately equal convenience to both individual and collective choices.” It is worth reflecting on the definition, which is a broad assumption that Since the 18th century, economic analysis has demonstrated how individual choices with the appropriate institutional context produce. free and self-regulating society.
*******************************************
The Red Queen and the Blue Queen are running to usurp the throne and harm the other’s followers.
