[extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
Robert Lindauer
robgobblin at aol.com
Mon Jul 25 19:16:08 UTC 2005
Mike Lorrey wrote:
>Ah, finally smoked you out. You are, then, a bakuninist, not a
>Libertarian of the pure anarcho-capitalist variety, though I do have
>quotes by you describing yourself as a "liberal-libertarian".
>
I'm a bottom-up libertarian. I believe you should free the people first
by deregulating the violently protected large business interests.
I'm "liberal" in that I fundamentally believe that politics OUGHT to
echo ethics and my ethics says "judge not lest ye be judged" and "let
whoever is without sin cast the first stone". I'm a genuinely
free-market capitalist - e.g. no government regulation of exchange
including protection of property rights and forms of money. If someone
wants to run a bank and print their own money, good for them!
Some people strangely enough interpret this as "liberalism" even though
it's not correct. Strictly speaking, I'm a free-market anarchist with a
heart who recognizes that in the current state of political repression
of the poor by the ultra-powerful and ultra-wealthy that pragmatism is
in order. For this reason it would be useful if the libertarian party
were to truly embrace it's personal and financial freedom message and be
the opposition party it should be.
> What you
>apparently are is one of those left-anarchists, like the luddites at
>TAO, the IWW, and the Ruckus Society.
>
>
Up until last year I was a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party
of California. I am, obviously, no longer. I realized that the whole
druidism, gerbil, randianism and marijuana thing wasn't ever going to
change because people-like-you are running the party apparently in order
to keep it from becoming a genuine opposition party.
>Robbie, a Libertarian shouldn't be in a position of "splitting" from
>Marxists,
>
A libertarian who scientifically evaluates political situations should
look at all of the available theories and Marxist analysis remains a
viable meta-political theory. There is still not, I assume, a
requirement that all libertarians be randian Objectivists, right? Or
have you finally got your way. In fact, recognizing that Political
power derives from material (economic) conditions is probably a first
step toward understanding anything.
> a Libertarian should be wholly opposed to Marxism.
>
One ought to distinguish between Marxist political and economic analysis
and fomenting violent revolution by stirring up the masses to kill their
capitalist oppressors. Obviously, qua non-violent political part,
Libertarians can not be the latter type of Marxists, however this
wouldn't prevent them from simply noting that parts of the theoretical
system of marxism is simply true.
> Thus you
>are in no position to be demanding my resignation from anything.
>
I am, you are one of the reasons that the libertarian party is failing
miserably at doing anything useful for the people of our country.
You're making a joke of it and as such you should step down simply as a
matter of pride. You should cease to involve yourself in national or
local poltical affairs because your involvement remains an embarrassment
not only to your party but also your unfortunate family.
>You
>are merely one more of those exclusionary entryist radical left punks,
>
>
You're not a very good name-caller. If you want to really hurt someone,
you have to say something true. You're an imperialist protectionist
republican in disguise providing nothing more than an psychological
outlet for spoiled rich children of the Alex P. Keaton sort who want to
rebel from their parents but wouldn't be caught dead helping poor
people. You don't understand enough about political or moral theory to
adequately identify some other person's of view much less understand
it. You are unable to convince anyone who disagrees with you of your
political ideas because you're obviously a sell-out who doesn't care
about the people who would be your constituency and can't adequately
articulate your position or why anyone else would be interested in
accepting it.
For all of these reasons, you should resign from public life altogether
- if you -really- must find something to do restrict your activity to
working for some imperialist appologetics think-tank somewhere. This
would be what Sartre would call "good faith" (well, for you anyway, at
least you'd be "being yourself"). Maybe you should join the Masons or
perhaps enlist in the military and do some of the killing and/or dying
you're encouraging others to do.
Robbie Lindauer
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list