[ExI] The enemy?/was Re: What the France!?

[Dan]

--- On Thu, 4/9/09, painlord2k at libero.it <painlord2k at libero.it> wrote:
> Il 09/04/2009 10.04, Eschatoon Magic
> ha scritto:
> > That is one of the reasons why I never called myself a
> libertarian,
> > though I am one deep inside.
> > 
> > There are two souls in modern libertarianism. One is a
> healthy
> > live-and-let-live soul, which believes in
> self-ownership and personal
> > freedom of everyone, and hates _all_ limits to
> liberty. It is not
> > "liberty, but..."., it is "liberty, period". The other
> is a fascist
> > soul which believes in the freedom of some to oppress
> and murder
> > others. I promise that I will call myself a
> libertarian when the
> > second soul will go.
> 
> In between there is the people understanding that liberty
> must be equal for all and it is not some suicidal pact where
> we let an enemy to grow until it is powerful enough to
> destroy us.

I think that a true libertarian would be afraid of the enemy known as the state.  I find it funny that someone who calls himself or herself a libertarian is afraid of some women in burkas, but quite willing to allow the state all sorts of privileges with regard to these same women.

As for Eschatoon Magic's talk of the two soul in libertarians, I totally disagree.  There are simply libertarians -- ones who accept the libertarian principle (of non-initiation of force) -- and non-libertarians.  The latter group often includes people who fancy themselves libertarians but who, for various reasons, set aside the libertarian principle.

For the record, one can be a staunch racist and still be a libertarian -- just as long as one still adheres to the libertarian principle.  This would mean, for the staunch racist, that she or he couldn't advocate initiating force against even the members of racial group she or he happened to despise or look down on.  Likewise, one can be the worst form of anti-libertarian -- say, someone who believes in using deadly force all the time -- and not be a racist.  It's a category error to confuse the two.

Of course, we could discuss thick vs. thin libertarianism -- in which case, an argument might be made that libertarianism as such, in its thick form, must be anti-racist.

Regards,

Dan