Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (26776)	8/17/2006 10:49:11 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543178

I went looking up libertarian authors using "libertarians social security education", because i was curious, and I found this: lewrockwell.com and I found it very interesting. It makes it clear that this author thinks the Bush drive to "save" social security was just more meddling in the welfare state, as contrasted with anything that was really libertarian (whatever that is.).

To: JohnM who wrote (26776)	8/18/2006 7:13:56 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543178

Am I wrong? You discussing libertarianism is like me trying to discuss religious faith. Try as you may, there's only so much that you can understand by looking something up in Wikipedia. It's not the same as living it, having it in your bones. When we get off our home turf, we have to recognize that. So one has opposite ideas of the good society: the first, a social/fiscal liberal one, embodied in the welfare state, in which the state is the agent that tries to provide some sort of safety net for one's last few years. The second, a society of strong individuals, offering charity to the less fortunate, and particularly in those last years, but discouraging dependence. Read that over. See the moral tone of it? Libertarians aren't moralists. I'm not saying that libertarians don't oppose the welfare state, rather that they don't do so for those reasons. Strength and responsibility are basic conservative constructs, particularly that of social conservatives, with their moralistic overtones. Libertarians don't moralize. And they sure don't focus on creating a "good society." They just want to be left alone to do their own thing. That is more doable in your second paradigm than in your first so libertarians may talk up the conservative initiative against the welfare state for their own purposes, but that doesn't make the opposition to the welfare state an essentially libertarian initiative. Libertarians dislike the social conservative agenda every bit as much as they do the welfare state. What you have described in that paragraph is a split between liberal and conservative philosophy. Libertarianism is a bit player in it. I'm not denying that libertarianism despises the welfare state, only that the opposition to the welfare state is essentially or predominantly libertarian as Lind framed it. Opposition to it is essentially conservative. It's about economics and moralism. Had Lind substituted "conservatism" for the inapt "libertarianism" in that piece, I would have read it and moved on to the next post. >>It is the utter and final defeat of the movement that has shaped the politics of the US and other western democracies for several decades: the CONSERVATIVE (rather than libertarian) counter-revolution.<< Edit: Another factor that may be in play is the confusion between the libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. He may be taking his cue from the Party platform, which is just plain weird as it tries to syphon off conservative voters. Edit 2: I see you went to Wikipedia. <g>