Quote:
Originally posted by kerry edwards
I can see some of Dubyah's points, but they seem inconsistent with pure Libertarianism. They assume there is some reality to mutual interests and group effort that transcend the ultimate value of the individual. In other words, government is the expression of the group and the group has some legitimate authority over and above the individual. But as soon as this point is granted; that there are group interests and collective goods that can only be achieved by the cooperation of many, a person is well on the road to socialism.
|
Yes, you're right about it not being pure libertarianism. The real Dubyah and his boys were pragmatic. Dubyah addresses the need for gov earlier in his piece, while I am fixated on the evils of party politics.
I guess there are people who are pure libertarians, I call them, "Ted Kacinsky anarchists". I think pure libertarianism is as abhorrent as pure communism.
Instead, I like a blance between the individual and society. Society needs order and discipline. Individuals crave exitement and dance with chaos. That tension require something to moderate the relationship. That something, is government.
I have no interest in defending "L"ibertarianism. It always seemed kinda granola-flakey to me.
So, mark me down as a liberty-loving American. The libertarian pigeon-hole is to-to big for me and the conservative pigeon hole is too restrictive. If the Democrats and Limbaugh hadn't stolen and abused the name beyond recognition, I'd be a "liberal." Thanks to those Demo Big Gov oafs and Rush's blanket condemnation of "liberals" I can no longer use that term without picturing Dukakis looking like Alfred E Neuman poking his grinning-doofus head out of a turret. The Horror!
Botnst