I imagine pretty much every political faction wants the government to hurt people less
As far as I can tell, libertarians want the government to hurt people less; statists want the government to hurt bad people more, and disagree over who is bad. (They also want the government to help good people more, but we’re talking specifically about hurting.)
Perhaps this is true of some Platonic ideal of libertarianism/statism, but in the real world people who would usually be classified more on the statist side of the spectrum tend to also want the state to hurt people less in various ways. For instance, progressives in the United States tend to be in favor of ending the drug war, or at the very least legalizing marijuana, on the grounds that the current regime hurts people unnecessarily. They’re also usually in favor of legalizing gay marriage, reforming prisons, removing subsidies on certain industries, police reform, cutting defense spending, less foreign military intervention. All of these positions could reasonably be described as the government hurting people less.
I guess you could say that American progressives have a mix of libertarian and statist views, and the “hurt people less” positions I’ve mentioned above constitute the libertarian side of things. But I think the fact remains that if you asked pretty much any politically engaged American (and I’m presuming this remains true in most other countries) whether they would like the government to hurt people less, they would answer “Yes”.
Perhaps this is true of some Platonic ideal of libertarianism/statism, but in the real world people who would usually be classified more on the statist side of the spectrum tend to also want the state to hurt people less in various ways.
I think we interpreted that claim differently; I saw “want government to hurt people less” as “oppose any government policy that hurts someone,” rather than “oppose at least one government policy that hurts someone.” I can’t think of a libertarian policy proposal that leads to the government actively hurting someone more (though, of course, many libertarian policy proposals would make people worse off as the government moves from action to inaction).
It seems cleaner to characterize that as “not helping.” Preventing anyone else from feeding their child seems like hurting.
As a general comment, libertarian policies work better for adults than they do for children, because they assume a level of individual responsibility that seems unreasonable to expect of, say, infants. It’s not clear to me how fatal a flaw that is for it as a policy-generating mechanism.
For instance, progressives in the United States tend to be in favor of ending the drug war, or at the very least legalizing marijuana, on the grounds that the current regime hurts people unnecessarily.
By that logic does the fact that they favor more regulation of tobacco count as wanting to hurt the “right” people?
Also they favor making the “rich” pay their “fair share”, eliminating due process for men accused of rape, etc., because the rich and college men need to be punished for their “privilege”.
I think you’re mischaracterizing the motivations of (most) progressives. I don’t believe that they are motivated by a desire to punish the privileged.
There is a difference between supporting policies that hurt people and supporting those policies because they hurt people. Progressives, like most other political actors, support plenty of policies that hurt people, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say they support them because they hurt people.
An example from the other side: A lot of social conservatives support bans on gay marriage. I think these bans hurt people unnecessarily, but I don’t think their supporters want to hurt people, or are motivated by a desire to hurt people.
Are you trying to describe an entire ideology based on one article by one author? I consider myself a progressive and don’t agree with a lot of what Ezra Klein, or many other pundits who label themselves in such a way, have to say.
Also not completely related but I don’t think that sensationalist website necessarily does a good job representing Klein’s point of view on the issue.
As far as I can tell, libertarians want the government to hurt people less; statists want the government to hurt bad people more, and disagree over who is bad. (They also want the government to help good people more, but we’re talking specifically about hurting.)
Perhaps this is true of some Platonic ideal of libertarianism/statism, but in the real world people who would usually be classified more on the statist side of the spectrum tend to also want the state to hurt people less in various ways. For instance, progressives in the United States tend to be in favor of ending the drug war, or at the very least legalizing marijuana, on the grounds that the current regime hurts people unnecessarily. They’re also usually in favor of legalizing gay marriage, reforming prisons, removing subsidies on certain industries, police reform, cutting defense spending, less foreign military intervention. All of these positions could reasonably be described as the government hurting people less.
I guess you could say that American progressives have a mix of libertarian and statist views, and the “hurt people less” positions I’ve mentioned above constitute the libertarian side of things. But I think the fact remains that if you asked pretty much any politically engaged American (and I’m presuming this remains true in most other countries) whether they would like the government to hurt people less, they would answer “Yes”.
I think we interpreted that claim differently; I saw “want government to hurt people less” as “oppose any government policy that hurts someone,” rather than “oppose at least one government policy that hurts someone.” I can’t think of a libertarian policy proposal that leads to the government actively hurting someone more (though, of course, many libertarian policy proposals would make people worse off as the government moves from action to inaction).
Wouldn’t you characterize parents who refuse to feed their child as actively hurting the child?
It seems cleaner to characterize that as “not helping.” Preventing anyone else from feeding their child seems like hurting.
As a general comment, libertarian policies work better for adults than they do for children, because they assume a level of individual responsibility that seems unreasonable to expect of, say, infants. It’s not clear to me how fatal a flaw that is for it as a policy-generating mechanism.
By that logic does the fact that they favor more regulation of tobacco count as wanting to hurt the “right” people?
Also they favor making the “rich” pay their “fair share”, eliminating due process for men accused of rape, etc., because the rich and college men need to be punished for their “privilege”.
I think you’re mischaracterizing the motivations of (most) progressives. I don’t believe that they are motivated by a desire to punish the privileged.
There is a difference between supporting policies that hurt people and supporting those policies because they hurt people. Progressives, like most other political actors, support plenty of policies that hurt people, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say they support them because they hurt people.
An example from the other side: A lot of social conservatives support bans on gay marriage. I think these bans hurt people unnecessarily, but I don’t think their supporters want to hurt people, or are motivated by a desire to hurt people.
Read what progressives like Ezra Klien actually write.
Are you trying to describe an entire ideology based on one article by one author? I consider myself a progressive and don’t agree with a lot of what Ezra Klein, or many other pundits who label themselves in such a way, have to say.
Also not completely related but I don’t think that sensationalist website necessarily does a good job representing Klein’s point of view on the issue.
Not all progressives are like that.