Guinness wrote:Kraftster wrote:
For me, personally, the reason that it matters is that if we have this starting point of -- people naturally act in their own self-interest -- that's a defensible reason as to why the person best suited to make decisions for an individual is that person himself. And maybe this is why I'm getting some of the libertarian barbs thrown my way now that I read this response from you. I do agree with that central premise and I think the entire reason that you can reaosonably defense that position is that people act for their own self-interest only. Taking that as true, it would be impossible for another to ever make the right decision for you unless it was by pure happenstance.
It may be a defensible position for individualism, but I don't think it's at the heart of libertarianism (without presuming myself to be the arbiter of all things libertarian
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
). There's a difference between acting in self-interest and believing in a principle of non-aggression. I don't believe in the use of unprovoked force, be it physical or coercive. That is why the best person to make a decision for an individual is the person himself.
No, that's definitely an important distinction (individualism v. libertarianism) and I appreciate the correction because I have never really been a libertarian devotee.
On that note, I should not lose sight of my elitist leanings (and this is where we will quite obviously diverge). Up until now I had been sort of talking about myself, but, my macro perspective is a little different (and might give away whether I consider myself to be elite or not
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
).
I think that the elite should basically be free to make decisions for themselves, whereas the non-elite should be subject to a more authoritarian role taken by the elite. That's why I said I think Elitism is a bit of both (libertarianism and authoritarianism, which, incidentally don't necessarily seem like precise opposites). Basically the level of elitism of a given person is directly related to the degree of control that they should expect to have exerted over them. The more elite, the more your decisions should be unconstrained. So I would be in agreement with non-aggression towards the elite, but, not necessarily committed to such a stance 100% when it comes to force exerted by elite over non-elite. Essentially, in an ideal world, I would be in favor of a meritocracy of sorts, with the governors obviously being members of the elite. Ideally there would be a test of some sort to be administered to individuals at some point (birth?) which would give you a snapshot of what that individual's capabilities would be. And it would be perfectly accurate. And that person would then be groomed to be exactly what they were capable of being. Happiness would be at an all time high. Its a lot less gruesome than it sounds, I think, though. I'm not advocating for a Anthem-esque world (or The Giver-esque world) because no one would be in a slot where they didn't belong.
Problem is that pesky test that isn't really available...