World

There are times when you just let the post speak for itsef

by The_Cynic | August 30, 2009 at 06:39 pm

358 views | 36 Recommendations | 5 comments

I have never, nor ever will, call myself a libertarian - and if you have these warning signs, you're a right-wing 'Social Conservative' who, in my opinion, doesn't have a clue about the reality of modern life.

Notice a propensity of newly minted Libertarians showing up lately? Perhaps it's just coincidence their ranks swelled in inverse proportion to George Bush's approval rating, ditto that so many are mouthing traditional conservative talking points. But what about the everyday gun toting townhall screamers and taxcutters and deficit hawks we see on cable news: are they really libertarian as so many claim, or just conservatives in glibertarian clothes?

My personal favourite:

If you believe you have an inalienable right to attend Presidential townhalls brandishing a loaded assault rifle, but that arresting participants inside for wearing a pink shirt is an important public safety precaution, there's a chance you're dangerously unbalanced, but no chance you're a Libertarian.

Is it because the conservative of today is actually running scared of calling themselves what they are - or is it they have no idea what a libertarian actually is?

I'll leave that up to you to ponder.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 19:46 on August 30th, 2009

I smile at your analysis but I understand you.re talking about Americans. Well my friend I'm a small c conservative. Which means, I'm not against abortion and I'm not anti-gay. I am not easily led by labels. I am fiscally conservative and I don't believe that government can solve all of our problems.

On the same token I accept and believe in socialized medicine as we have it in Canada. I believe in looking after our Seniors.

I also don;t agree with labels.

The wingnuts I have on my bicycle are not prejudice they apply equally to the left and to the right.

The_Cynic

at 20:01 on August 30th, 2009

And ya know what, ACP? I have nothing at all against conservatives, nothing at all.

You use the word(s) 'socialised medicine', I prefer to call it what it is, to me, Universal Healthcare.

Now, me - I certainly don't believe government can cure anything and certainly not solve societies problems, never have and never will.

As I say, ACP, as I have said to you before - I am a "real" Marxist - and, if anyone would like to read Marx, they will see that he, and I, do believe in a genuinely 'FREE' market place - not the so-called free market we have today.

I won't go into a full on Marx lecture - but he did a lot of scientific research as to how society works, and he foresaw the monopolies we have today. Marx, believe it or not, read Adam Smith with a passion.

My label, of which I am proud is: Marxist, liberal, left, Socialist, free thinker, humanitarian, realist, anti-corruption blah, blah and English!

Oh, and if I can get a deal I will deal - I am also a realist.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 20:13 on August 30th, 2009

So the bottom line is we're not at odds with each other. The only difference is when I read Das Kapital, my interpretation was totally different and I also took human nature into consideration, which Marx may have too.

Unfortunately corruption is a fact of life, not only in so called free market societies but also in recent socialist socieites or those that patterned themselves that way.

Every society will end up with someone leading it and as disgusting as it may be, power corrupts and creates a class of entitlement even in the Marxist model. My opinion.

The_Cynic

at 20:37 on August 30th, 2009

Isn't it always the bottom line? I mean that in societies premise and not an accountants one.

There isn't that much difference in conservative thinking and Marxist thinking - it is, as you say, how you interpret what he has to say. As you read Marx do you read it with the view that "That bastard brought us the USSR" - or do you read it with an open mind(ish).

And, yes, you are correct that in society we will always see leaders, we cannot - because of human nature be all leaders. If, on the other hand, we can fight class segregation at its root cause - I feel that will be beneficial to human kind - I think that is what conservatives and Marxist feel, too.

Neo-Cons, from the 30s onward, are not like that at all, there isn't a pragmatist bone in their body.

Marx in common English for those who would be interested.

Colonel Boyle

at 00:38 on September 1st, 2009

I'm not sure what the point of the comments are!

To my reading, Libertarianism is about the emphasis on individual rights and responsibilities, rather than investment in the power of the state. If we look to the horrors of the 20th century, we could count genocide, war and economic ruin among the greatest achievements of centralised states. Where a determined individual can bring ruin and pain to dozens, only the State can institutionalise murder and ruin on a supranational scale.

Does that mean that there is no place for The State? No. But it does mean those who look to it to impose their vision of the world in the name of justice, equality or any other great-sounding ideals must be aware that it puts them on the same spectrum of belief that lead to the gulags of Stalin.

People will say that that's an extreme example - and it is. But lumping libertarianism in with vulgar conservatism is exactly the same kind of rhetorical trap. Just because some social conservatives claim to be libertarians doesn't make it so. The true libertarian principle would be that people are free to be as gay or brown as they like so long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of someone else to be straight and white.