|
"I'm happy to let people make all kinds of decisions for themselves. And I'm left. How do you explain that?" That, I believe, would be explained either by (1) you not being a leftist; or (2) you not really being happy to let people make all kinds of decisions for themselves. Consider the following: Would you let each person decide how they spend the money they earn, and decide who to give it to (if anybody)? (left answer - no, the government should take a big chunk and spend it for them) Would you let an employer and employee determine their own relationship without the use of outside (government) force? (left answer - no, the government should set all the rules) Would you allow businesses to merge voluntarily, even if it meant a concentration of market power? (left answer - no, the government should decide who can and can't merge) Would you allow people to plant whatever crop they like on their own land? To remove any tree they like on their own land? (left answer - no, the government should decide what you can plant, and what you can remove) Would you allow people to offer any goods/services they owned for voluntary exchange? (left answer - no, there should be licencing and regulation to ensure government standanrds are met) Should people be free to own and use firearms or drugs, so long as they don't harm other people? (left answer - no to firearms and yes to drugs so long as the government forces non-users to pay for the drugs) Stew - there is only one dichotomy in political philosophy that matters. Everything else comes back to this. How large should the government be and what should it do? Government action and free actions of indidivuals are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive ways to coordinate society. That's not to say the world is black and white. There are a thousand different points you can hold on that one spectrum... but the spectrum can't be avoided.
| 
