Any non-propertarian libertarian friends? Do you consider them to be libertarians? Friendly toward anti-capitalist libertarians, or socialists too? What do you guys think? Personally I still have socialist and Non-propertarian libertarian friend. I’m generally friendly, I see similar goals, and have a past history. Also, I still read from some of them, Chomsky can kick some ass.
I personally don’t agree with most leftism. But yeah, they have similar goals, just want to use different means to achieve them. I don’t dislike them as much as I dislike the authoritarian left (Pelosi, Reid liberals.)
Fixed.
This is mostly towards non Austrian libertarians. I want to see the relationship and friendliness of Austrians towards other libertarians. Who doesn’t consider them libertarians?
As long as they’re against a monopoly on force, they’ll help us get where we want to go. It’s just that where we’re going won’t look like what they say.
I usually dislike them more than normal statists. Normal statists don’t actually think much about their viewpoints, wheras the socialist libertarians simply propose a new monopoly doing more monopolist things in one way, and less in another.
Let’s see. Chomsky is a heavily practicing hippocrite and says that “American libertarianism” is the most abominable thing imaginable. Bad example, perhaps.
Perhaps…
There used to be some good Socialist and Populist Anti-Statists in the 19th century, but that was a totally different breed. And it was more that their stuggle and instincts were good, not so much their programme.
Their pale copies of the present day don`t count much with me.
No. While they may talk about eliminating the state, their ideas necessarily entail a state to coordinate their fantasy–and a repressive one at that.
Since they aren’t for property in a wider sense: no. They usually want some silly notion of “possession” in order to make their system at least somewhat “feasible” But to deny rent, interest, etc: they cannot be for liberty.
I think constitutional libertarians are statists. They rely on the constitution for guidance. The constitution is a statist document. It does a good job at limiting the power of the executive but allows the state to carry out various socialist programs and allows the judicial branch to have supreme control over how laws are decided… as opposed to letting the people be sovereign. It puts the sovereignty in the state.
I go through phases with Chomsky. He has this radicalizing effect, similar to Rothbard. I love that. I’ve read probably 6 to 8 of his books. I even went through the inevitable private linguistics study frenzy under his influence. And yet: the errors of this crowd in matters of theory are never far from the surface. I do find it tiresome. So the best thing to do is use their research when it is good and otherwise don’t bother.