Every word of this depresses me deeply, because I know from bitter lived experience that it’s all true:
If you *really* want the government out of our lives, then we are going to have to return to a society that (ironically) was significantly less individual than the one we have now.
“Liberty” back in the day meant operating under a different kind of tyranny, the “tyranny” of the family, the obligations and demands of not just a wife and kid, but of in-laws, parents, grand parents, family elders, cousins and their kids.
Whatever jokes people make about their obligations to family now, it is *NOTHING* compared to what would be necessary if we actually shrunk the size of government down to what libertarians want.
And what would actually happen to our economy if more American money was being funneled into self-care? How much vacationing or consumption of random goods and services would folks engage in if they had to care for an elderly parent or a sick relative with *no* help from the government? (…)
Libertarians never ask these questions.`
It’s a PoliSci commonplace that “freedom” and “equality” are mutually exclusive.
However, isn’t it also the case that (using the author’s definitions) “liberty” and “individuality” are, too?