Downvoting the right-wing "libertarianism".

Re markets: Here's an interesting although entire tangential debate between David Horowitz and Michael Albert -- http://www.zmag.org/horoalb.htm

It's not stick figures and thought balloons, qualm. Thanks anyway!

I didn't downvote for the format of the video -- which I happened to appreciate; I downvoted for the fact it's right-wing libertarian propaganda.

Never heard of a right wing libertarian. Way to invent your own demons. *applauds*

I bet all of the libertarians you've heard of are right-wing libertarians, ie., strong proponents ('proponent' means 'for' not 'against') of "Austrian School" economics, which are at the far end of the right-wing. That is, unless you are using the term in the historically proper European sense. Practically everywhere else in the world but the US the word "libertarian" means something quite different than it does in the United States. In the United States "libertarianism" almost invariably refers to anarcho-capitalism.

Send your check to PO Box 10340, Station 5...

edited to add:

Perhaps you've seen people like Noam Chomsky, for one example, describe himself as a "libertarian socialist" and become confused.

Here is a relevant quote from Chomsky:

“Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of ‘free contract’ between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

“I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.”

“The American version of ‘libertarianism’ is an aberration, though--nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: ‘No, I'm libertarian, I'm against that tax’--but of course, I'm still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.

“Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard [American academic]--and if you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is a world where you don't have roads because you don' see any reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you're not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It's a world built on hatred.

“The whole things not even worth talking about, though. First of all, it couldn't function for a second--and if it could, all you'd want to do is get out, or commit suicide or something. But this is a special American aberration, it's not really serious.”

End quote.


The video here is three quarters of an exposition on precisely the "right-wing libertarian" or "anarcho-capitalist" worldview elucidated above. Ron Paul is a proponent of this reprehensible worldview.

I like the display of both viewpoints, video vs. comments. Upvote!

I think I'll upvote this simply for the discussion it can generate.

I was watching this and just waiting for them to tie marijuana into "your property," and sure enough, there it was at the end. The problem with that is that you cannot consider something "justly acquired property" if you acquire it against the laws that your society in general has agreed upon. People will disagree with a rule because their own desires conflict with it, but that does not mean that their desires are always more worthwhile than the established order. There is a right way to initiate change, and while it takes a lot of work and a long time, it's worth it. The only way in a society to rationally create change is to make it official, because otherwise the government DOES have rights to take your property from you, because in that case it is unjustly acquired according to the rules of the society.

In before rembar. (j/k man)

This video seems to demonstrate some of the ideology one may benefit from while living in a smaller hunter/gatherer society.

Nice quotes by qualm. I liked the ideas in the video, but you kind of brought me back to reality.