Skip to main content

View Diary: Who knew the reason libertarianism was so noxious was plagiarism? (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Seems like everyone it repeating Noam Chomsky here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    waterstreet2013, Dustin Mineau

    He is probably the most famous libertarian on the left.  Can we possibly stop bashing all libertarians, and focus on the real issue here.

    These guys aren't libertarians at all, the are corporate owned bank whores!

    •  Chomsky a Libertarian? Libs are all about picky (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      definitional warfare and argumentative tactics aimed at "winning the dabate." Is that Chomsky, in his prescriptive writings? Maybe not so much.

       I think a more accurate and rightfully scary definition of what constitutes libertarianism can be found in a fascinating series of articles that I read in "Naked Capitalism."

      The main title is "Journey Into A Libertarian Future," and the first article, "The Vision," appears here:

      The other 5 articles are linked. And for myself, I at least recognize how far along that journey we've come, and the pressures and interests and structures in play are continuing to drive us faster that way. "Government-Like Organizations?" "Insurance?" Wow.

      "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

      by jm214 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:58:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I believe refered to as a Libertarian Soc- (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        offgrid, MadGeorgiaDem

        ialist.  What is commonly known today as libertarianism, at least in American politics, is far from Libertarian.  It should more correctly be referred to as corporatism, or fascism for there is nothing in this new American corporate philosophy that values or upholds the inherent rights of the individuals, and the society they make up.  
        Rand Paul, is no libertarian, Ron Paul is an idealist who calls himself libertarian, but if you look to their actions neither one of these men advocate either liberty or individual freedoms, rather they advocate STATE RIGHTS AND CORPORATE RIGHTS, and generally only when a non-conservative is running the executive branch.
        The most blatant anti-libertarian actions committed by these  men is arguing against, and voting against, campaign transparency. How can anyone possibly say they are advocating for the rights of individuals when they are voting to deny these individuals  the right to know who is funding the candidates corporations allow us to choose from? No a true libertarian would fight for political transparency, not obfuscation.
        The media allows these men to get away with calling themselves libertarians because TRUE LIBERTARIANISM is unacceptable to both parties.
        What is a true Libertarian? One who believe that an individual should never be coerced to commit an action , and should not be coerced to limit their behavior if said behavior harms no one but themselves.
        What is a Libertarian form of Government? A government whose sole purpose is to make sure it's citizens are protected from coercive forces that would act to restrict harmless behavior, or direct the citizens to act in a manner which is contrary to their interests.

        Is it the job of the government to tell me that I can not smoke marijuana? Absolutely not! It is the job of the government to guarantee that my right  to smoke marijuana is never denied me by coercive forces through the use of threats of violence or direct violence.

        Is it the job of government to mandate a particular medical treatment?  Absolutely not!  It is the job of government to notify the citizens about what treatments are available, their effectiveness, and to make sure that NO ONE FOR ANY REASON CAN DENY ME THE RIGHT TO THE BEST MEDICAL CARE AVAILABLE.

    •  Chmosky is an anarcho syndicalist n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

      by lotusmaglite on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 08:38:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The problem (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The problem is that the word Libertarian has been co-opted by an extremely narrowly focused group that actually is anything but libertarians.  There is a reason that the word liberal has the same root as the word libertarian, and during the enlightenment the words were nearly interchangeable.

      The modern era Libertarian party is anything but libertarian.  It's born from racial animosity and its primary focus for the first few dozen years was to win back the "Freedom" to segregate the races.  It's all really well orchestrated double speak, there is nothing truly libertarian about the modern Libertarian movement.  From there people like the Koch brothers took the modern Libertarian party and turned it into a party that supports a tyranny ruled by the modern Aristocracy of wealthy business owners.

      Another example of this double speak is the modern conservative movement's code words "states rights" (which they adopted to get the racially charge Libertarians onboard).  No conservative believes in "states rights", the conservatives would be first in line to ban all states from things like safe effective abortions or minimum wages or organized labor.  They have no interest in the "states" having the right to those things, and they would jump on the chance to have the federal government dictate policy to the "states".  The only issue of "states rights" is because they tried have a narrow, pedantic argument that the Civil Rights Act is an abuse of the commerce clause.  The conservative movement is born of a strong federalist belief system.  The proto-conservative, Edmund Burke, was afraid of the libertine excesses of the French Revolution and felt people were unable to truly self-govern and needed a strong ruling class to keep the people in line.

      Much like Chomsky I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist, but that has nothing at all to do with what Americans think when they hear the word libertarian (which is really an Aristocratic movement).  Chomsky, of course, describes it way better than I ever could:

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site