OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Back to OJB's Blog Search Page)

Pragmatic Libertarianism

Entry 2384, on 2025-01-30 at 13:15:28 (Rating 2, Politics)

Sometimes people can be quite surprised, or even shocked, at some of my political positions. I work in a university, so extreme leftists ideas, which appear to originate from a place of naivety and ideological idealism, seem to predominate, which makes any other position, including anything which is even moderately right, seem extreme in the opposite direction.

The philosophical basis for my politics is the pursuit of optimal freedom. I'm not an anarchist who wants a complete lack of government control, because I recognise that it can be necessary in some situations, but I do want to minimise the influence other people, especially governments, have on me.

In the past, more left-oriented governments seemed to offer the best option for freedom of speech, and moderate control of society for the greater good, but that has changed, and now it seems to be the right which takes freedom more seriously.

There are two types (at least) of right politics though: conservatism and libertarianism, and many of the beliefs of those two groups differ, although there is significant overlap as well. I tend to identify more with libertarianism than conservatism, although I do agree with many aspects of both, and other political perspectives as well.

So I can see some merit in libertarianism, conservatism, socialism, nationalism, and environmentalism. Actually, the only party in New Zealand I couldn't vote for is the Maori Party, because they are just a bunch of irrational, racist extremists, with no redeeming merit I can identify at this point. And currently the Greens have gone too far down the path towards a disturbing blend of environmentalist, woke-ism, and Marxism, so currently I couldn't vote for them either, although I did in the past when they were more moderate.

It would be quite bizarre if I found one party which fitted by beliefs perfectly, because then in what way would I be an individual? Could I have identical beliefs to a party and still claim to be thinking for myself? I don't think so.

At the last election I voted for New Zealand's libertarian party, Act, because that was the best fit at the time, but that won't necessarily always be the case. I see myself as a pragmatic libertarian. I think many of the basic principles behind that political position are good, but there are exceptions, so I am pragmatic and accept that sometimes different ideas, even those which seem completely contrary, are needed.

Libertarianism emphasises the need for individual freedom and responsibility, but no one (at least no truly thoughtful person) thinks that can be achieved absolutely. When I, utilising my freedom, significantly affect another person then my actions need limitations. When the ultimate outcome of individuals working for their own benefit results in a worse situation for the majority, then individuality has failed and top-down control might be necessary.

But controls over the individual should be a last resort, where no other options are available. The left generally favour rules and regulations, and plenty of them. They favour committees and government organisations to impose control from the top. As I said, sometimes this is necessary, but it should be minimised, and if the initial purpose for an organisation is no longer relevant, then that organisation should be shut down.

In the US currently, there is a push to disestablish many of the government institutions. The new president has a group called DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) which is tasked with reducing the number of institutions which currently exist (and before you ask, yes, I do recognise the irony in creating a government group to reduce the number of government groups). No one seems to know how many of these organisations there are currently, or how many people they employee, but the number seems to be in the 400 to 500 range, with potentially millions of employees.

Reducing the number of organisations of this type does seem to be a good idea, because they are costing the taxpayer a fortune to run while reducing their freedoms and stifling innovation and progress, at least allegedly.

As I said above, I am not an absolutist on this subject, so I think some government organisations are needed, but I think the default position should be to not have one unless it is absolutely essential. The current attitude amongst many is that more is always better. That seems unlikely.

The same applies to the rules, regulations, laws, and policies many of these organisations create. They say ignorance of the law is no excuse, but no one can know every law (and that's not even considering other forms of rules) and even if they did, many laws are open to interpretation. I say let's concentrate on quality rather than quantity, and make the law something that can reasonably be understood and followed by the majority of citizens.

You might say it will never happen, but every despotic regime eventually is overthrown, even when the possibility of that seems small. Senior politicians in Europe were laughing about the possibility of the demise of the USSR the day before the Berlin Wall came down. Many people were absolutely confident Kamala Harris would be the next president the day before the election. Many people in New Zealand were shocked by the resignation of Jacinda Ardern.

Freedom is important. Maybe it's all that really matters, especially when we interpret the word in the wider context. How do we achieve it? Through pragmatic libertarianism, I say!

Comment 1 (7815) by EK on 2025-02-02 at 13:23:02:

Your wish dream of being free – from the direct action and from the indirect influence (in any shape or form) of other people – will always remain just that: a wish dream. Being part of society, especially modern complex society, and intergenerationally, means being under the influence of millions of others and dependent on the direct and indirect action of tens of thousands in one way or another, in your actions, your thinking, your whole being. Even as a present-day Robinson Crusoe you’d be directly dependent on others , on whether they leave you be, ignore you or otherwise.

You are a product of society and connected to humankind at the navel, caught in the spidernet of meaning provided by all of humanity (to wax poetical for a moment) . You’ll never be free – adjust to that!

Comment 2 (7816) by OJB on 2025-02-02 at 18:07:43:

As always, thanks for your comment. I did try to emphasise, even in the title which included the word "pragmatic", that I fully accept compromises on the extent of freedom I can expect. When I said "I do want to minimise the influence other people, especially governments, have on me" I really did mean that I fully accept that I don't live in a vacuum. I just think, especially in recent times, that the influence of governments (vaccine mandates, etc) and other institutions has gone too far.

Comment 3 (7817) by Anonymous on 2025-02-05 at 11:32:23:

How can it be pragmatic if it is libertarianism? How can it be libertarianism if it is pragmatic? Ha ha.

Comment 4 (7818) by OJB on 2025-02-05 at 16:03:43:

I don't identify with any pure political identity or ideology. Libertarianism is just the closest identifiable political view to my preference. So sure, if I was a pure libertarian, there would be no pragmatism. The opposite could be argued both ways. Either way, if you read my post carefully, you will see that your objection is not relevant.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.