Giving football a short break today to address somethin’…
Spotted the following comment from a statist-progressive on Kos:
[T]he human condition is an ongoing tension between the desires of the individual against the needs of society. And libertarianism in its purest form is so biased toward one side of this as to be igorant (yes, that’s the word I used) of the needs of society.
Whenever this rhetoric comes up, it begs a few questions:
- How do we define the needs of society?
- Who addresses the needs of society?
- Who decides who makes these decisions?
- How do we know that whoever makes these decisions genuinely cares about the needs of society?
- What do we do about it if they don’t?
- Even if whoever is in charge of making these decisions in the interest of society as a whole genuinely cares, suppose the solution they come up with for an issue is hugely unpopular?
- Suppose an issue w/ society comes up that simply cannot be addressed directly?
An answer is welcome from anyone willing to respond, but my point isn’t in the answers. From my view, the questions are the answers, in that my response to appeals to society as being anything beyond a collection of individuals of equal standing is to ask how.
When you consider why I ask these questions, you’ll know why I reject the view that prompts them.
It’s also worth noting the way he frames the supposed tension between society and individuals- society has “needs,” while the individual has mere “desires.” Biasing the comparison that way, it’s not hard to guess which side he’s going to sacrifice.
As to your third question, the real “tension” is between letting people live free and controlling them.