>Well, I'm not a member of the LP but I'm largely sympathetic with their
>platform, and I like to stress one point. One thing is solidariety with the
>disadvantaged, another very different thing is legislating about it. To a
>libertarian (no matter how the word is capitalized), government-mandated
>fiscal redistribution sounds every bit as oppressive, self-serving and
>hypocritical (and, ultimately, futile) as, say, legislation punishing
>adulterers on the (otherwise reasonable) grounds that stable relationships
>are good for the society; or prohibitionism; or compulsory military draft.
>It is quite puzzling for us how left-wing libertarians can calmly accept the
>old socialist chestnut about the questionable legitimity of individual
>property rights, at the same time defending all the other liberties of
>individuals from the state.
I don't disagree with you, except perhaps that income and wealth inequality inevitably erodes the liberty of the have-nots, so that liberty requires redistribution of wealth in those cases. I just want to reiterate that the word "libertarian" is better used to describe someone who believes in liberty, as opposed to someone who merely wants to minimize government. Corporations infringe upon individual freedom too. I'm sure there are other examples of authoritarian structures. Preferring one form of oppression over another isn't libertarian at all.
>Perhaps, Brett may want to call back his erstwhile girlfriend and have a
>calm exchange of views, possibly around a table with a candle and two
>glasses of bordeaux, if that's not too bourgeois ;-)
Sounds good to me, although I doubt her husband would appreciate the gesture.
Brett