Smitty wrote:
>
> Norb,
> Frankly, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I suggest
> you read some libertarian authored books (you have no excuse not to as
> you work in a bookstore) before you spew forth political stupidity.
> Limbaugh is a conservative and if you knew anything at all about
> libertarianism, you would not be advertising your ignorance by confusing
> the two.
> Smitty
>
Actually, I DO know what the fuck I'm talking about. I'm not reffering
to the social aspects of the Liberatarian agenda as opposed to the GOP
agenda. In fact, like Harry Browne, I agree that non-violent drug
offenses shopuld not be criminally prosecuted, though I do believe it
should be treated as the disease it is, like Alcoholism (I don't agree
that we should do away with the military or the education system or
privatize prisions or pull out of the UN and NATO, or allow the rampant
growth of the WTO, unempeeded by those evil environmental and worker
protecting laws that sovereighnties DARE uphold). However, The far nutty
right that I'm talking about is the abusive form of Mills's Liberatarian
philosophy which the far far Republican right (the - as described by
many of its own members - "Liberatarian wing" of the party), in which,
yes, to each their own, but unless it's done responsively it will not
only neccessarily affect others, but rather it will also affect and
impede upon another's freedoms. My example of this is the ecological
attrocities which King George and Dick Cheney (oh, such appropriate
name), are paving the way for with their new legislation (energy). Such
short sightedness and plain-out greed should be prosecuted (c'mon, can
you actually tell me that two Texas oil men don't have their minds more
on their wallets than on the health of the nation when it comes to Oil?
If you believe that, then I have a bridge in Frisco that I'd like to
sell you). It is people like these that support the increase of wealth
of the ultra wealthy, turning a blind eye to the way that future
generations, as well as current ones, are being and will be affected.
Liberatarian philisophy works the same way when applied to government in
that it does not enforce the right of an individual to enjoy complete
freedoms in the case of another more wealthy and powerful individual's
attempt to take that freedom away - for example, the freedom to go to
the beach and be relatively safe, as opposed to swimming in water that
has more industrial pollutants than Houston, due to the government not
taking the freedom to pollute indiscriminantly from a mega-corporation,
such as GE or Exxon. The more powerful in this case has taken the
freedom away from the first individual to both enjoy themselves and the
freedom to have a healthy life if they so choose.
In short, Liberatarianism works well at the micro level, but fails
miserably at the macro level - it introduces individual freedom without
responsibility. In fact, it is Liberatarians who often argue that Gates
is NOT a monopolist, even though he has OBVIOUSLY taken the freedoms of
others away. This is what I consider the far nutty right. Of course,
here I'm talking about economics, not reffering to the "moral
superiority" of the far-nutty GOP Right (don't get me into that one).
There is a difference in the social aspect, but when it comes to
economics the GOP and Liberatarians are merely examples of someone going
too far and the other saying "it's not far enough!"
Norb,
Perfect centrist, but absolute leftist if viewed from the Far Nutty
right.
(P.S. Paul, as for a vast right-wing conspirracy, what do you call the
WTO?)
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:45:35 EDT