I cringe when I hear some jackass, high on Ayn Rand, claim that the free market can solve all problems. Or who whines about regulations and how they are the root of all evil, and opines about how wonderful the world would be if only the markets were truly free.There has been a truce, of sorts, between Progressives and Libertarians, since both groups opposed Bush's war at a time when it commanded popular support. The truce, having served its purpose, must end.
I wonder how said jackass would react if he/she found his toddler gnawing on a Chinese-made toy painted with lead paint. Or found his beloved Labrador was eating pet food tainted by melamine, added no doubt by fellow Ayn Rand afficianados to save a buck at the jackasses expense. Or found out his toothpaste was purposely contaminated with a toxic chemical. Sadly, the list goes on.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
On Libertarianism: What he said
Needlenose presents some words on Libertarians that had me mumbling "Hear hear!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hazaah!
As my (anarchist) grandfather used to say, "libertarians want all the entitlement without the accountability". A Sicilian by birth, he was well schooled on Robber Baron Economics. Ayn Rand never work a day in her life. Period.
We--who are ostensibly reasonable people--aren't going to help the situation by engaging in the same demogogic rhetoric as the right-wing pundits (Hannity, Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh, Reagan, etc.) that we criticize. To refer to libertarians as "jackasses" is not only a reversion to fifth-grade argumentative tactics, it's also stupidly counterproductive. I am appalled at this kind of supposedly "progressive" commentary. Blogs like Digby (and to a lesser degree FDL) wallow in this rhetorical invective.
Jesus. If we can't win this great struggle for our nation's soul by using reason, compassion, and logic, we don't deserve to win.
I THINK both groups generally oppose the rampant corruption within "our" government, and vigorously oppose the ongoing assault on Constitutional government we've been facing.
I'm also pretty sure the "War" is still going on, and I'm pretty certain that ending it is going to require a strong and unified coalition of citizens who are willing to place other issues on which they disagree on the back burner long enough to get the job done.
Maybe I missed it when they announced that the US was withdrawing its troops, that fair and honest elections are now assured, and the installation of a vigorous and active anti-corruption regime with teeth was announced.
If this position is representative of "Liberals" in general, it should serve as an excellent illustration of why they rarely get anything accomplished, and how they exhibit the same inflexible, rigid, and irrational characteristics as their arch-enemies, the NeoCons.
If this is a contest to be won on intelligence, it is a race between turtles on crutches.
D, the point I was making is the same as one I made in a very early blog post. The shotgun marriage of Libertarianism and the Progressives had to do with the war. Well, now the public -- all sorts of folks outside of any ism -- has resolutely turned against the war. And so there is no need to be working with people with whom we have nothing else in common.
I say all that for a couple of reasons:
1. The decidely non-Libertarian nations of Europe are now loaning us money.
2. Libertarians have access to power, in the sense that they are invited to speak at Federalist Society meetings, as progressives are not.
3. Many progressives are attracted to guys like Ron Paul, whose ideas would be disastrous if implemented.
Aside from that, I think in essence that Libertarianism just plain sucks. The economy is like the highway: Regulation makes the thing work. Nobody likes to see those flashing lights in the rearview mirror, but imagine what driving would be like if there were no cops on the street. The only people who would not be afraid to venture out on the road would be guys like Vin Deisel's character in the Fast and the Furious. Everyone else would be afraid to venture out of their homes.
Same thing with the economy. Without regulations to protect us all, only the thugs and the sharks thrive. The Libertarians I've met seem to dig that idea, since they usually picture themselves as King Thug, and they like the idea of running over all the lesser beings out there.
Libertarianism has been tried. The experiment was called the 19th century. Didn't work.
Joseph,
I get it. You are a full-throated liberal, and despise libertarianism..
I'm a full-throated constitutionalist who can't find a party, but in general terms, I like including Libertarians in the discussion because if we are going to commit to engaging in meaningful political dialogue, they force us to identify and question our assumptions. I think that is healthy, and I believe it is far too rare in political discourse from all sides. (And when I say "our" I really mean everyone who is not a real "Libertarian" - myself included.)
But I digress. The primary thrust of my response was and remains that the job is far from done, and the limited coalition has far from exhausted its usefulness.
While I understand your repellant attitude toward all things "L" such a complete shift in attitude remains ill-timed, ill-advised, and irrational, IF your priorities as a liberal are to 1. restore and protect constitutional principles, 2. end the war, and 3. end the complete corruption of our public institutions by monied and political interests of all stripes.
Those priorities could be listed in any order you want, but if they are all in YOUR top 3, then I think this movement is way premature.
If you have other priorities that you would sacrifice any of the above to achieve, then it might be rational from your standpoint- but disasterous from mine.
Anyway, nice talking to you again. I enjoy trying to move the "Cannonfire Wall of Granite" despite knowing better...
Ayn Rand was a HE.
Ayn Rand was a SHE
kc
Post a Comment