Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marleypumpkin
Okay, what about Libertarianism are you skeptical of? Freedom of choice, expression, less govt., individual rights?
Or is it because they believe in the right of self-defense?
|
'Libertarian' as defined in the USA is an extreme rightwing ideology of Randian Amoralism, 'corporate-feudalism' is the best term I can come up with for any resulting society structured on its principles - presuming it didn't destroy it in the first week attempting to convert to it.
It champions the unequel distribution of wealth, class stratification and control of society by private tyranies.
So as usual in American political discourse a word has been taken and its meaning turned inside out - from its coining in the 19th century and still today in the rest of the world the word 'Libertarian' has always meant the the branch of socialism opposed to state authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marleypumpkin
I get it, they believe in Capitalism (free market), & that's the evil political belief where a person has an unlimited right to contract. Which I admit, it has it's faults. But MOST people have the common sense not to commit fraud, insider trading, etc., which is why I'd rather have people of the local level regulating their own means of production.
In short, Libertarianism is not about a political party, it's abut an idea. Unlike Rep. / Dem. which have goals & agendas, libertarians believe in humanity enough to let individuals decide for themselves what is right & what is wrong.
If you're skeptical of that then, there's probably nothing I can say that will persuade you otherwise. To each his own, which ironically is what Libertarianism is all about.
|
Except we're not talking about a living breathing human being, we're talking about an immortal psychopathic being which is legally obliged to have no other goal except the accumulation of wealth.
Now notice you nor anyone else pushing this deviant belief ever addresses this little issue, except maybe to smugly assert that its the fault of the state - apparenty it forces at gunpoint a corporation to take control of water utilities* or public transport & then cut services to poor areas.
How can this blinkered argument exist?
Well could it have anything to do with these policies being favourable to the position of Elites?
Do we dare suggest rich and powerful people want greater wealth and power by pushing an ideology that further reduces the states (and through it the population-a state can be compelled to be democratic) constraints over them? Madness!
(*an act that Bolivian people have violently opposed, and now that they have a government they participate in are correcting along with a great many other ills forced upon them by a narrow minority of the local Elites and foreign investors. American-style Libertarians must be horrified that the rights of Bechtel are being overriden by the meddling of peasents)