Oh, it’s absolutely absurd!
But I can understand there being a greater outcry when a more radical collectivist (Gravel) is even considered.
to be fair though, from all I have heard he seems to have found his way and has renounced many of his former rightist views. At the FFF conference he spoke and at the end someone ask him about the drug war and he said he no longer supports it. It is on youtube.
How so? How is Mike Gravel an anarcho-communist anyways? I don’t exactly see him calling for the abolition of both private property and the state. Not that I like the man or anything.
I’d say that the word libertarian has a whole bunch of different meanings in public discourse now, partially due to the LP’s own screwy PR campaign. Libertarian is used to mean or refer to:
-
“Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative”. A misleading maxim if I’ve ever heard one. This makes people think that libertarianism is the same thing as “moderate”.
-
Paleoconservatives. In my view, some elements of the libertarian movement are simply paleoconservatives, and not the best of the bunch either. This is particularly true about the mainstream party.
-
Market liberals and/or low-tax liberals.
-
Anyone who happens to be a member of the party, regaurdless of their philosophy. “Big L” libertarianism.
All of these are of course misidentifications. But when the word “libertarian” comes up the common person hardly thinks to themself, “oh yes, someone who believes in worker ownership of the means of production, solidarity and participatory democracy”.
Conversely, conservatives have stolen the following words and phrases: libertarian, free market, individualism, limited government.
JAlanKatz has a point that there is also a rightist invasion. It’s been far more dominant then the leftist one.
But than how long until whatever new word we come up with is userped and we have to come up with an even newer one? Unless you used something a little harder to corrupt. Maybe free marketeer?
You’re not getting it. The word libertarian was usurped by Rothbard. Its original, true meaning is anarcho-communist, who elected to call themselves libertarian after the French government banned anarchists.
I don’t think I’m shocking anyone by saying that Rothbard had a lot of bad ideas in his life, the Libertarian Party being one such terrible ideas.
Don’t worry though, it is much easier to re-brand than to rescue a brand with a bad reputation. This is why bankrupt companies change their names.
P.S. The word liberal as well wasn’t usurped. The 19th century liberals were not just the free enterprise people but also the pro-democracy people. In the end the pro-democracy people won out, though not in Europe were they still label themselves as liberal-democrats in opposition to liberals.
The anarchists have a saying: capitalism is the beast, the state is the cage.
P.P.S. French socialists today label liberals as “ultraliberals”. I like the tune of it myself.
This might be my bias as a former rightist, but I don’t think that the right stole those words, the right simply claims to support those ideals (but in practice, rightists don’t).
If that doesn’t make sense: rightists often campaign on a limited-government platform, but once in office they grow the size of government. When government is growing, rightists rarely claim that rightist politicians are in fact practicing limited government, they just grumble and they vote for them again.
Liberals have actually taken the word “progressive” to mean “progressing towards collectivism”.
Another difference: rightists admit that libertarians are in favor of greater individualism, more limited government, and greater free markets, but they say that those things are undesirable.
Oh good one! Zing that right-wing Ron Paul. Cause we all know there is no left-wing anti-immigration, anti-world trade movement.
Surely those who disagree with you are infected with non-libertarian tendencies. For example, anyone who thinks abortion is murder is a statist, regardless of how they feel about the State.
This whole thing reminds me of Cato libertarian style benevolent imperialism. They oppose any dismantling of the national government because they fear self rule. Various laws in various places would be too untidy and there would be at least one place that would become less tolerant.
Libertarian society will not be achieved by ignoring borders and uniting the world under a single libertarian legal system. It will only be through shrinking the polity down to, eventually, the individual level; where individuals and groups agree to not aggress against others. Universalism ensures slavery for all.
Your argument is a straw man anyways as Ron Paul is not anti-immigrant.
I don’t care what kind of wing nut they are, if the are not for open borders they aren’t libertarians. I don’t know if you noticed, but the free market doesn’t believe in, favor, and can not operate with closed borders. So I don’t care what kind of dumb fuck wants to call themselves a libertarian, if they don’t believe in open borders, they aren’t.
Anyone who calls for the state to intervene in anything is a statist, again, I don’t give a fuck whether they are they are pro-choice or ANTI CHOICE.
If your vision of libertarian society will be implemented through the poltical process, it will never happen no matter how you paint it. The idea that somehow your going to shrink the state through participation in the poltical process is retarded. The US started with one of the smallest, least intrusive governments of all time. They wrote a long ass treaty with each other to keep it that way. And it ended up with the government we have today.
And I didn’t say Dr. Paul was anti immigrant, I said I was tired of politicians that want to close down the borders calling themselves libertarians.
Don’t get all touchy because the poltical machine smacked “the” messiah down. Shit happens. If you want to participate in the farce that is libertarian politics, get used to it.
I’ll preface this by saying I do have a feeling that this is all going to end violently.
Not that I’m opposed to that: states use violent force whenever they collect taxes or enforce price controls.
Still, if collectivists can slowly but steadily grow the size of government, I don’t see why individualists can’t slowly but steadily shrink it if the correct strategy is employed.
If the correct strategy includes using the force of the state to make society in their own image, whats the difference?
Glad we can agree on that.
I didn’t mention how the polity would be reduces. Unilateral secession and civil war could shrink the polity, though thats not on my to-do list for obvious reasons.
That was true of the Articles of Confederation but not of the Constitution which replaced them in the name of open borders and universality. That willful step away from local sovereignty is what brought us to where we are today.
It amazes me. One hack politician throws his name in the hat for a party nomination, and we all grab for our guns.
We attack perceived invasions by left-statists and right-statists; someone who doesn’t fit libertarianism to a T is equated to a statist. Perhaps we should just call ourselves the Robespierre Society.
You sound as bitter as I am!
I agree that the collectivists have the deck stacked in their favor… and they have the FUCKING nerve use the threat of deadly force to tax us, etc., all the while calling the democratic process “peaceful”. It’s disgusting!
Still, for the time being, wouldn’t it be more advantageous to us if we tried to use elections to roll back government? State militaries could squash capitalists easily.
Imagine a Ron Paul character, with similar views and rhetoric, but a much more moderate platform (and a much more outgoing personality)? Using incremental changes with fierce rhetoric could possibly sway opinion. It’s what the Democrats do!
Gravel is not a hack. He filibustered the draft.
That he is held in such low esteem demonstrates the health of the anti-war movement in the US.
Oh yes, for the most part the trade unions harbor similar sentiment, and the paleocons tend to love them unions. Even more reason to oppose the nationalist border obcession movement.
Actually it’s nothing of the sort. You err in conflating that with libertarian radicals who disagree with your paleo tendencies. Not everyone who disagrees with paleo nonsense is some kind of catoite neo-libertarian. In either case, border enforcement is not a dismantling of the national government. It is the reinforcement of precisely what defines it, the territorial dominion.
This is a straw man. Opposition to political borders does not equate to globalism. The point is just the opposite. To decentralize as much as possible. Nationalism is very centralist when it comes down to it, for national territories are huge.
I don’t know about you, but I find the territory controlled by the national/federal government of the U.S. to be huge. It’s a gigantic chunk of a continent. There’s nothing decentralized about enforcing its dominion.
Slavery represents a lack of universality in fundamental ethics. Globalism is not universalism. It would merely represent an exlusive elite controling even larger territories. There is nothing universalist about it.
There is nothing “universalist” or “open borders” about creating an even larger territorial monopoly. Equating universalism and “open borders” to centralization is downright silly. The constitution established new borders over an even larger territory. Nothing anti-borders about it. Time for libertarians to drop the paleocon influences. They’re unhealthy.
There is a big difference between not following libertarianism to a T (like Ron Paul) and being in favor of Social Security and a state-run healthcare system.
You know what other type of people aren’t libertarians no matter what they call themselves? Those who forbid dissent from their creed.
And thus libertarianism becomes the mere intellectual game that statists believe it to be.
They do?
Thats probably why I never said either of those.
Nor did I say that national sovereignty versus international agreements was equivalent to immigrant policies. But do you honestly believe a North American Union would empower the poor of Mexico or the USA? I doubt it.
Not necessarily, but thats not the point.
Semantics. I meant universal legal order, ie The Constitution as the “Law of the Land.”
The Constitution didn’t create a territorial monopoly. It also did not abolished the states, it merely deprived each of an aspect of sovereignty.
I did not equate them.
Border policy, like segregation, offends people sensibilities. But rather than telling people what they should do, like the state does, we should design a society that encourages people to choose it freely. And thats what the market does and thats what Ron Paul said he wanted.
Liberty, like Austrian economics, is value-free. I find I disagree the most with libertarians who have the most obvious values; like the Lincoln apologists who try to weigh dead people against enslaved people, or pretty much anyone with an immigration policy.
And over using the paleocon label isn’t going to make it anymore true.
LMMFAO
And do you know who aren’t Catholics? Protestants.
Did I forget to mention I don’t care what statists believe or disbelieve? They can keep score of whatever they want, I don’t care. Personally, I am not in competition with them for control of the state, so I could care less what kind of game they want to play.