Rarebird: Master in the art of Brevity - NOT -
No doubt, Libertarianism is in vogue. Libertarianism is particularly attractive to younger people and computer professionals, with approximately a quarter of all libertarians in the computer industry. There are numerous libertarian bulletin boards and websites. In addition, money from corporations and well-heeled individuals has poured into the Cato Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and other right-wing libertarian think-tanks.
Libertarianism is in vogue???? Did you see the number of votes the libertarian candidates got? This assertion cannot be supported with any objective data. There may be pockets of support, but it certainly isn't in vogue.
I know you like to preach and convert when you come on a thread which is predominately left wing in orientation. Am I going to hear now that you like to listen to the other point of view? If so, it sure doesn't look that way.
Why is it "preaching" when I state my views and when it is you, you are only stating another "point of view"?
I know Libertarians favor a minimal state. But the Libertarians' crusade against antidiscrimination laws best illustrate the pitfalls and paradoxes of libertarianism. They view with hostility any attempt to regulate or control business practices because such laws diminish individual liberty and interfere with freedom of contract. Specifically, antidiscrimination laws limit the freedom of employers, landlords, and other property owners to use their assets as they wish. Although libertarians also argue that the compliance costs of civil rights laws outweigh the benefits, their core argument is that such laws unjustifiably restrict individual or private prerogatives. Concepts of fairness and equal opportunity may be desirable, but in the libertarian worldview such values are outweighed by the supreme values of personal liberty and property rights.
You are right, I believe in the right to freely associate with whomever I wish. I have stated that here and the LWP and RWE threads were created with that philosophy in mind. This is nothing unique to Libertarians, it is just that Libertarians will tend to not believe in situational ethics and will apply the same values to every facet of their lives. But to your point, in my industry, if a company is not willing to hire minorities and women, they will perish. The freemarket at work....
I'd like to know whether individuals have an absolute right against coercive interference in one's affairs and the right to property. Unfortunately, dogmatic high priest libertarians like yourself do not explain why such personal and property rights are absolute or why they override other moral claims or conflicting rights. It is far from self-evident that the rights of a billionaire investor (like Warren Buffet) to preserve and expand their wealth free of government interference should take precedence over the rights of a desperately starving person to receive public assistance. Moreover, the dogmatic libertarian assumption that the original and subsequent historical acquisition of goods is just is undermined by the historical facts of slavery, racial oppression, and colonial tyranny.
Explain to me why you think that you or the government has the right to coercively redistribute my property? Why do you think that a bunch of bureaucratic power mongers knows how best to use my property. I don't want power over another person's property, but I certainly don't want someone else to have power over mine. You made the statement that the libertarian philosophy has never been tested, this is true, but you also seem to be placing the blame for slavery, racial oppression, colonial tyranny, school vouchers (which I support), clean water, spotted owls, etc... in the labs of libertarians. Which is it, an untested philosophy or a powerful in vogue movement? Philosophically, libertarianism would be against any coercive behavior against another person. Slavary is clearly a coercive behavior, so any libertarian who says that they wouldn't fight it, isn't a libertarian.
Is it to the upper middle-class child's credit that he enters an Ivy League university savvy in the ways of modern institutions, relatively well-educated, and organized enough to accomplish tasks and make short-term sacrifices? Is it the ghetto child's fault that he or she emerges unskilled and illiterate from public school, bereft of self-discipline from a disintegrated family, or listless and afraid from 18 years in a housing project?
Since libertarianism has never truly been tested, it is hard to say exactly what the outcome would be. However, we have a government in place that is clearly not based on libertarian philosophies that keeps on using the argument of the starving child to get more taxes, so why don't you show me how this government has solved these ills in society by redistributing my property. It certainly isn't that little girls fault for the situation that she is in, but it also isn't going to help her any to take a dollar from me and then give her 15 cents (hey, government costs money) so that she can go buy a piece of gum.
I am a giving and generous person, I just don't think that claims of being generous and giving because you have a certain political party affiliation or political leaning are justified. The test of generosity is when you give when you don't have a gun to your head in the form of taxes.
BTW: I liked your posting style much better on the Y2K threads. At least then, when you were preaching your misguided views, you kept it to a couple of paragraphs. |
