How a small band of determined legal academics set out to persuade the Supreme Court to undo the New Deal—and have almost won.
In case anyone was wondering why philosophy — or call it foundational studies if you think the term "philosophy" is outdated — is important.
As the article observes, Libertarianism is a form of conservatism. However, it is based on an assumption of self-sovereignty that is actually an extreme form of liberalism in that it prioitizes prioritizes individual freedom.
But how can a conservative position be liberal?
The answer lies in the paradoxes of liberalism. Economic liberalism leads to disparity of wealth and income and the de facto institution of social class and political power through economic means. This is anti-democratic, which Libertarian dismisses as the tyranny of the majority over the individual.
So Libertarianism leads to neo-feudalism of "capital" under economics liberalism unrestrained by social and political liberalism through democratic governance based on government of the people, by the people and for the people under popular sovereignty, a pillar of political liberalism.
Conservatism is about rule by most qualified, that is, the privileged few who rise to the top, on the assumption that this is chiefly due to merit when violence is taken off the table under the rule of law in which the basic law is self-autonomy and an absolute right to private property. Sociologists beg to differ.
Libertarians are correct however in arguing that America was founded as conservative country rather than a liberal one as the founding documents and the controversy around their composition and adoption reveal. Slavery was enshrined in the constitution, which is illiberal as it gets.
The American government is that of a republic rather than a popular democracy, which early debate reveals was designed to favor those who able to amass political power, which is typically a matter of wealth in societies in which violence is ruled out as a political tool. The design is to preclude "the rule of the rabble."
As the article observes, Libertarianism is a form of conservatism. However, it is based on an assumption of self-sovereignty that is actually an extreme form of liberalism in that it prioitizes prioritizes individual freedom.
But how can a conservative position be liberal?
The answer lies in the paradoxes of liberalism. Economic liberalism leads to disparity of wealth and income and the de facto institution of social class and political power through economic means. This is anti-democratic, which Libertarian dismisses as the tyranny of the majority over the individual.
So Libertarianism leads to neo-feudalism of "capital" under economics liberalism unrestrained by social and political liberalism through democratic governance based on government of the people, by the people and for the people under popular sovereignty, a pillar of political liberalism.
Conservatism is about rule by most qualified, that is, the privileged few who rise to the top, on the assumption that this is chiefly due to merit when violence is taken off the table under the rule of law in which the basic law is self-autonomy and an absolute right to private property. Sociologists beg to differ.
Libertarians are correct however in arguing that America was founded as conservative country rather than a liberal one as the founding documents and the controversy around their composition and adoption reveal. Slavery was enshrined in the constitution, which is illiberal as it gets.
The American government is that of a republic rather than a popular democracy, which early debate reveals was designed to favor those who able to amass political power, which is typically a matter of wealth in societies in which violence is ruled out as a political tool. The design is to preclude "the rule of the rabble."
The Rehabilitationists
Brian Beutler
