I'm probably going to get jumped for this, but I am essentially a libertarian.
However, and this is a fairly big however, it needs to be established that "libertarian" is a fairly expansive word and encompasses many different types of people, from apolitical nihilists to Randite Objectivists to classical libertarian socialists (ie anarchists) like myself.
The Libertarian you refer to is obviously of the American variety, and usually spelled with a capital "L" (as in the Libertarian Party) or possibly an outright Randite, like the one recently in canpolitik. Such people are libertarian capitalists and it is very important to consider this fact.
As I comment on a few things that you touched on here, please keep in mind that these are very different philosophies.
libertarian --> Anti-authority, anti-hierarchy Libertarian --> As above, but usually associated with the Libertarian Party of the USA and explicitly pro-capitalist.
"...an assumption of middle-class about them"
I totally agree, and it's one reason why I give these people little credit. It's great for someone who has never worried about their next meal to extol the virtues of the market, but that means little to those who need bread *now*.
For any human being to ignore the effects that poverty and class has on other human beings is criminal, in my opinion. And Katrina was an excellent example of this, in so many ways.
And the same people that are so anti-government and yet care so much about markets and money seem to be oblivious to such basic questions as: a)who defines property b)who defends property rights c)who makes the money
"The reason I could never be a libertarian is because I believe it is in society's best interests to help people make the best choices they can - the choices that will be best, not only for them, but for their families and for society as well."
What you are arguing against here is not so much libertarianism so much as pondering how society should be organized. It is perfectly reasonable for a society to organize itself without hierarchy or authority but still provide a support network for all members of society.
The problem I see with Libertarians is that, because they extol the virtues of capitalism, they tend to see everything, even human suffering, within the context of markets. This is not a feature of libertarianism in general but of capitalism specifically. None of the libertarians I associate with would sit idly by while people suffered.
At the same time as the person you were talking to may have wanted to sell life-preservers to drowning people, there were libertarian socialists setting up free clinics and schools for the survivors in New Orleans.
I see it as a question of solidarity... never charity. In fact, I hate the "c" word.
"I am prepared to permit a government program to provide a year-long maternity leave to working moms, so that they can breastfeed and spend time bonding with their children and recover fully from childbirth, without undue financial hardship."
Which is cool and all, but such a program could also be organized without a government and thus be consistent with libertarian principles. (Not without major restructuring of our society, of course).
"And, most important to yesterday's discussion, I'm not prepared to let people die in contaminated floodwaters because they didn't have the foresight to own a car."
Hear! Hear!
It's sad that these people are even given a voice for their disgusting beliefs, and I deeply resent that I am sometimes considered in the same category as them. And all because of a capital "L" :)
no subject
I'm probably going to get jumped for this, but I am essentially a libertarian.
However, and this is a fairly big however, it needs to be established that "libertarian" is a fairly expansive word and encompasses many different types of people, from apolitical nihilists to Randite Objectivists to classical libertarian socialists (ie anarchists) like myself.
The Libertarian you refer to is obviously of the American variety, and usually spelled with a capital "L" (as in the Libertarian Party) or possibly an outright Randite, like the one recently in
As I comment on a few things that you touched on here, please keep in mind that these are very different philosophies.
libertarian --> Anti-authority, anti-hierarchy
Libertarian --> As above, but usually associated with the Libertarian Party of the USA and explicitly pro-capitalist.
"...an assumption of middle-class about them"
I totally agree, and it's one reason why I give these people little credit. It's great for someone who has never worried about their next meal to extol the virtues of the market, but that means little to those who need bread *now*.
For any human being to ignore the effects that poverty and class has on other human beings is criminal, in my opinion. And Katrina was an excellent example of this, in so many ways.
And the same people that are so anti-government and yet care so much about markets and money seem to be oblivious to such basic questions as:
a)who defines property
b)who defends property rights
c)who makes the money
"The reason I could never be a libertarian is because I believe it is in society's best interests to help people make the best choices they can - the choices that will be best, not only for them, but for their families and for society as well."
What you are arguing against here is not so much libertarianism so much as pondering how society should be organized. It is perfectly reasonable for a society to organize itself without hierarchy or authority but still provide a support network for all members of society.
The problem I see with Libertarians is that, because they extol the virtues of capitalism, they tend to see everything, even human suffering, within the context of markets. This is not a feature of libertarianism in general but of capitalism specifically. None of the libertarians I associate with would sit idly by while people suffered.
At the same time as the person you were talking to may have wanted to sell life-preservers to drowning people, there were libertarian socialists setting up free clinics and schools for the survivors in New Orleans.
I see it as a question of solidarity... never charity. In fact, I hate the "c" word.
"I am prepared to permit a government program to provide a year-long maternity leave to working moms, so that they can breastfeed and spend time bonding with their children and recover fully from childbirth, without undue financial hardship."
Which is cool and all, but such a program could also be organized without a government and thus be consistent with libertarian principles. (Not without major restructuring of our society, of course).
"And, most important to yesterday's discussion, I'm not prepared to let people die in contaminated floodwaters because they didn't have the foresight to own a car."
Hear! Hear!
It's sad that these people are even given a voice for their disgusting beliefs, and I deeply resent that I am sometimes considered in the same category as them. And all because of a capital "L" :)