Political Philosophy: Maximum Freedom.

We have a lot of different sides to politics. Extreme left, extreme right, the tiny but powerful “Middle” that just wants to keep taking bribes and keep things working the way they are but there is no single governing philosophy which tells us if our policies are actually good or bad. I would like to propose one.

What if every policy was designed on the foundation of giving the maximum number of people, the greatest amount of freedom?

Let’s look at some of the major issues and see how this philosophy would work out.


Guns

Pro:

  • Everyone has the freedom to own guns. To hunt and shoot for sport as well as for self-defense.
  • Guns save a few lives every year when used defensively.

Cons:

  • The majority of American live in fear of people misusing guns and society is growing more isolationist every year because of the fear of violence.
  • Guns in the hands of the wrong person leads to death. Death is the ultimate lack of freedom.
  • Guns are one of the most effective ways to commit suicide.
  • Guns are often the cause of accidental deaths.

Conclusion:
The presence of Guns is counter to the ideal of Maximum Freedom.


Money in Politics:

Pro:

  • A small group of rich people get what they want.

Cons:

  • Congresspeople and Presidents have to spend more time fundraising than they do actually passing laws.
  • The will of the majority is almost never reflected in the laws that are passed because of the influence of money.
  • Every year it becomes more expensive to run a campaign meaning that fewer and fewer people can run for office. This excludes qualified candidates who could do a better job.
  • The power of influence causes our politicians to continue to use policies like Trickle Down Economics and tax cuts for the wealthy which we know from historic data do not, ever work.
  • Trump.

Conclusion:
Money in Politics is counter to the ideal of Maximum Freedom.


Environmental Protection:

Pro:

  • Fewer people get sick.
  • Fewer wildfires.
  • Fewer people die.
  • There are more places to experience nature.
  • Maintaining natural resources benefits everyone on earth.
  • Preservation maintains biodiversity.
  • Life is just more pleasant
  • Jobs are created for regulators, testers, scientists.

Con:

  • Companies have to spend more money.

Conclusion: 
Environmental Protection agrees with the ideals of Maximum Freedom.


Looking at these examples, you may say to yourself, that these lists are not fair or incomplete but that’s the point. It’s a tool. If we look at issues strictly from the perspective of what brings the most people the most freedom, we can turn very, very complex issues into very simple discussions.

It’s a framework that removes drama, takes personality and persona out of the equation. It boils everything down to what will benefit the most people in the most effective way. It won’t matter who’s policy it is, it would only matter if it’s beneficial, effective policy that helps the most people.

Isn’t that what we, as a society, should be striving for?