Are libertarians radical?December 31, 2007
In the process of trying to convert a socialist friend to support the principles of freedom, she remarked, “ya, you’re not radicalâ€. I didn’t really know what to make of that statement, so I asked if she was being sarcastic. Of course she was. My instinctive reaction was to become somewhat defensive and disagree. The conversation had to be cut short for an unrelated reason, but if it had continued I surely would have tried to convince her that supporting freedom and the sovereignty of nations is not radical. To the contrary, supporting massive taxation for the benefit of corporate parasites and global hegemony is quite radical. rad·i·cal [rad-i-kuhl] –adjective Today, I’m not so sure. In preparing for this article I looked up the definition of radical and actually found it quite appealing. Despite the obfuscations of many Libertarians the central tenants are actually fairly basic and, even if implemented only in pieces, quite fundamental to the success of most nations that achieved anything of significance throughout history. Relative to the current bloated and corrupt corporate socialism we experience today, transitioning to a truly free society may legitimately be considered an extreme or drastic reform. It may be a sad statement about the current state of affairs but that doesn’t diminish its reality. The collectivist trends we experience today have been the natural tendency of mankind since the dawn of civilization and modern states are no exception. I don’t think accepting the term will help anybody get elected for the same reason I refused to be labeled as such, but since when has reality interfered with democracy… No related posts.
5 Comments » |
Highest Rated
|
Loading ...
Interesting. You talk a lot about socialists What is your definition of ‘socialist’? Someone who advocates nationalization of all key industries? Because there aren’t many of those around.
I think you’re using the term ‘socialist’ to mean ‘non-libertarian’. Non libertarian is a pretty huge majority of the planet – about two standard deviations worth to the right of the statistical mean.)
I think you would be surprised. What is your definition of “key”?
When I use the term socialist I’m generally referring to people who support the collectivist concepts of government redistribution of income and opportunity by wrestling away control over the means of production from its own citizens — keeping in mind that control doesn’t have to involve an army general in charge of GM — control could be just as effective with an appropriate mix of subsidies and taxation.
I never said the majority of people weren’t socialist.
socialism: n
a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
–
Doesn’t describe many societies
Anyhow, I am suggesting that your blog would be more readable if you limited it to the English language instead of a made up language with pretend definitions
e.g. white should mean a color that reflects all spectrums of visible light, and up means the opposite of down, etc.
Seems a bit petty to invent bogus terms for the very large majority of people who aren’t libertarians. Even people who might subscribe to some of your ideas will be turned off by that.
Nick
Nick, thanks for your suggestion, but I don’t have a problem with my definitions.
(1) Is your property really private if the government can seize it through eminent domain? Is it really private if you have to pay such a massive amount of property tax for the privilege to own it? Is it really private if the government passes law after law governing what you can do and how you can behave in your own home? Is it really private when the government can search your home or monitor your actions without a warrant? I humbly submit that you may have a difficultly recognizing the difference between reality and a label.
(2) I already addressed the means of production in my previous comment.