> The libertarian philosophy is apparently
> not well understood in these parts.
Not to worry, it's not well understood by libertarians, either. It's the Holy Grail! No, it's a candy mint!
For a serious quick study, check out Critiques Of Libertarianism at http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
> Libertarians are more consistent than many
> on the left, whose notions of rights and
> obligations is a hash where, for instance,
> civil liberties are legitimate under
> capitalism but counter-revolutionary
> under socialism.
Libertarians want to see the repeal of ALL laws protecting civil rights, except those effecting the government--which they'd like to see abolished.
They say it in their own convoluted way, of course. The following is from the Libertarian Party Platform of 1996:
====================== FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION
Individual rights should not be denied, abridged, or enhanced at the expense of other people's rights by laws at any level of government based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation.
We support repealing any such laws rather than extending them to all individuals.
Discrimination imposed by government has caused a multitude of problems. Anti-discrimination laws create the same problems. While we do not advocate private discrimination, we do not support any laws which attempt to limit or ban it.
The right to trade includes the right not to trade -- for any reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to associate, for exercise of this right depends upon mutual consent. ======================
Get that?
"Discrimination imposed by government has caused a multitude of problems. Anti-discrimination laws create the same problems."
One size fits all!
> Those who cede the ideal of freedom to
> the right certify their own political
> irrelevance.
Libertarians take ee cummings "as freedom is a breakfastfood" to be a serious statement of political philosophy.
There's a BIG difference between an ideal and sugar-coated pablum.
Several essays linked to from the site I mentioned deal explicitly with the snot-nosed (male) adolescent fantasy element of libertarianism. Max is quite right that we should take it seriously and understand it. That DOESN'T mean it's in any way "intellectually respectable." But then, neither was Naziism.
Once again:
Critiques Of Libertarianism at http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"