[Iain]

These links contain opinion that runs contrary to much expressed here.

All the below are taken from http://world.std.com/~mhuben/leftlib.html

Constitutionalism - http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/features/54black.html (homepage http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/index.html - strongly recommend you look at that before anyone uses the word 'leftist')

Ayn Rand - http://www.spunk.org/library/otherpol/critique/sp000859.txt

Socialism and freedom - http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/pol/FAQ/free.html (from http://www.drexel.edu/top/pol/FAQ/contents.html)


Anyone got the time to read these and thoughtfully respond?

edited to replace a wrong link (the Ayn Rand one) edited again as the last link is broken and I can't fix it right now.

[Kaylee]

um.... "libertarian socialist??"

feh... the term is inherently self-contradictory. Socialism requires the severe restraint of individual liberty to even exist.

I think the trick is centralization of power, or the lack thereof. Too much power in too few hands generally results in people being taken advantage of -- doesn't matter if said "few hands" are public or private.

It just seems the "right leaning" folks see said centralizing forces as deathly dangerous in government hands and no big deal in private hands... "left leaning" folks the reverse.

That said.... as a general rule I'd say the right-leaning side of the argument tends to be more realistic in balancing said forces in TheRealWorld, as opposed to Utopias.

-K

PS -- I see the latter guy has tried to answer said criticism with the old saw "well.. all the communism/socialism's not been tried yet.... it wasn't real communism socialism."

Feh. I say again, FEH.

If a socialist system can't sustain itself past the first TrueBeliever generation in the good 'ol US of A, it certainly can't sustain itself on a national basis where you actually have to deal with --- the horror!! -- people who actually put themselves above TheCommonGood. :rolleyes:

[Standing Wolf]

um.... "libertarian socialist??"

Aw, heck, yes! You know, kind'a like those winged pigs you see flying around parts of Iowa?

[Don Gwinn]

I'll read just about anything someone puts in front of me, but the comments about the phrase "libertarian socialist" does not fill me with gladness. If the author considers himself or anyone else to be both simultaneously, then he doesn't understand one or the other of those terms. They are mutually exclusive.

(EDIT)

Read the first piece linked. The one about a "Ghost Dance." Aside from the oh-so-clever-but-not-quite-witty attempts at humor, it's one long straw man fallacy. Who are these Constitutionalists who say that English common law was divine and flawless? I've never met anyone who even implied it, and I've met a lot of people I'd describe as Constitutionalists. I'm one of them. I've never believed that we follow the Constitution because it or its authors (or the prior body of law from which it developed) is or ever was infallible, complete, or perfect. I believe we must follow it as carefully as we can because it forces men to look beyond the passions of the moment and thus safeguards the rights of the minority by providing an objective benchmark for all to use. Of course that's not applied flawlessly. "Flawless" does not exist. It is literally an abstract, imaginary concept, just like a geometric point or line.

Hope the others are better.

[Iain]

Ok, well ignore that last link if it suits you (broken anyway). Try the one about constitutionalism.

My only point in posting this is, as Nietzsche says (and I paraphrase) ''the surest way to corrupt a youth is to teach him to only value, and seek, the opinions of those who agree with him.''

oh and:

''A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. '' That would be 'socialism' as defined by Webster's.

'' Pertaining to liberty, or to the doctrine of free will.'' That would be 'libertarian' as defined by Webster's.

[Justin]

I am now dumber for having read that...

He {Ludwig Von Mises} answered the
Marxists and the Keynesians and defended laissez-faire capitalism
at a time when no one else would. His justification for capital-
ism was empirical~the greatest good for the greatest number.

What? So the fact that Von Mises pointed out that a free market results in the best quality of life for all involved means that he's a utilitarian socialist?
That makes absolutely no freaking sense at all.

Ayn Rand, however, attempted to offer a moral justification of
capitalism by substituting the word `capitalism' for the liber-
tarian meaning of the word `socialism'. She then attributed all
of the ills of capitalism to government interference with the
market and all of the world's wealth to the minds of the men whom
the world considered the robber barons.

Hey, how about this: if the author can point out one scientific/industrial/social/economic advancement made purely by government, I'll eat my hat. Sorry, but gov'ts are incapable of advancement. Every American advancement has been as a result of the free enterprise.

This guy is attempting to force Rand and Mises into the very molds they were working to shatter.

Typical socialist.

[Don Gwinn]

Yes, the Webster's definition illustrates the point. Having "society" impose its idea of a "more fair distribution of property and labor" by definition means that the minority must be forced to comply with the majority as to who gets how much for what work. It cannot possibly coexist with libertarianism, which by definition must abhor that kind of repression.

That bit about "lawless" and revolutionary social schemes, by the way, is not part of the definition. Webster's notes that the term is commonly used that way, not that it's correct to use it that way.

[Iain]

What I am doing is merely throwing some oppositional points of view into the mix, for the reason Nietzsche gives.

[Art Eatman]

I read the link for "Constitutionalism". It merely reinforces the old Will Rogers comment about "...what people know that ain't so."

However, the term "Constitutionalism" has to do with the U.S. Constitution, insofar as the way the word is actually used. "Common Law"; "Magna Carta", etc., are of interest, but have no bearing on what we have as our "guiding light". Rather difficult to go back and ask the writers as to how they interpreted those earlier ideas and documents...

Learned people obviously color it with their own personal views as to the meaning; otherwise there would not be 5-4 decisions from SCOTUS.

I gotta go along with those who say that Socialism and Libertarianism can't mix--by definition, they cannot mix. Socialism requires a powerful central government to function, and that's anathema to the Libertarian philosophy.

Enough for tonight...

Art

[fallingblock]

"as Nietzsche says (and I paraphrase) ''the surest way to corrupt a youth is to teach him to only value, and seek, the opinions of those who agree with him.''
************************************************************

Insanity with mental and physical paralysis could result from trying to merge socialist and libertarianism as well.:D

Nietzsche jokes aside...

Please continue the excercise, St. John....his premise above is certainly valid;)

[Khornet]

And St Johns.

Couldn't possibly be that those who are called in need of instruction have arrived at their positions based on wide reading, thought, exposure to other points of view (e.g. during their entire education) and decades of experience, could it?

I know this was well-intended, and meant to be thought-provoking. I just get a little tired of the assumption implied in the Nietzche quote.

[Tamara]

''A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. '' That would be 'socialism' as defined by Webster's.

'' Pertaining to liberty, or to the doctrine of free will.'' That would be 'libertarian' as defined by Webster's.

So, uh, how does one go about "reforming, reconstructing and redistributing" people who have "liberty" and may not wish to be reformed, reconstructed and redistributed?

With all due respect, a "libertarian socialist" is like a whiter shade of black or a hotter kind of cold...

As far as the Nietzche quote ("Nietzche Cheese Doritos: Food for thought!") goes, there are quite a few folks on this site whose political views are darn near polar opposites of each other. It's just that you, like most folks, tend to look for political views in terms of "left-right" rather than "control-freedom".

[Khornet]

In the mid-1990s, concerned that my conservative viewpoint was a result of reading only one side of the news, I took an inventory of my monthly news reading.

On the liberal side:
My home city's paper, seven days a week: 30 issues
The paper from the adjoining city, five days a week: 20 issues
The Washington Post each morning in the doctor's lounge: 20 issues
Newsweek at the office: 4 issues
Time at the office: 4 issues
Total: 78 issues from the liberal side.

On the conservative side:
The Wall Street Journal weekdays: 20 issues
National Review twice a month: 2 issues
The American Rifleman (thrown in, although it really is a single-issue publication): 1 issue
Total: 23 issues from the conservative side.

I don't watch television, so I don't count the NBC/CBS/ABC/NPR/CNN/MSNBC exposures, although television is everywhere and we are all exposed. I gave up on NPR when their politics became inescapable. No longer could I skip the news ' reporting' and listen to the entertainment, when Garrison Keillor indulges in cracks about Republicans and even Click and Clack make fun of conservatives. So in the final count, I had 3.4 exposures to the liberal point of view for every conservative one. I guess I wasn't being brainwashed by the Right.

[Oracle]

I read Liberty's articles about Harry Browne almost a year ago. The scandal concerning Browne and others in his campaign is why Browne most likely won't be the Libertarian candidate in 2004.

As for Ayn Rand, she herself never identified herself with the Libertarians, from what I understand. There are a lot of Objectivists in the Libertarian party, though, as, of the political parties that are out there, it's the one that most represents their views.

[Keith]

Pointless. I read the "White Man's Ghost Dance" link and it reminds of the oh-so-clever political diatribe written for the college newspaper - the kind of thing that your beret-wearing college radical reads at the coffee shop, just before calling dad and asking for more money.

His theme seems to be that if we actually adhered to the Constitution as written, we'd soon descend into feudalism...? The Magna Charta is not the Constitution and I don't see the point of pretending it is.

I didn't read any of the other links, but assuming they are more of the same I'll respond by pointing out that the Constitution is notable not for what it enables government to do, but for the limitations it imposes on its powers.
Every time you award government a new power, you do so at the expense of personal liberty. The Constitution is an attempt to give government "just enough" power to work, and no more.

Keith

[Iain]

Interesting guys, you approach things quite differently than, as Khornet pointed out, quite a lot of the media does.

Keith - reached the same conclusion about his tone, have read articles just like that in Palatinate (my uni's paper). His content is what I was interested in, thanks for your comments on that.

Tamara - my political views are not summed up or even covered by the above links, wanted a libertarian critique of the articles, as some of them are critiques of libertarianism. Will have a look into the concept of ''libertarian socialism'' when I have time again.

Khornet - thanks for your input. No assumptions were made, apologies if that is the way it appears.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I recall, the substance of Rand's problem with Libertarians boiled down to two points:

1. Because we agreed with her, we were guilty of plagiarism.

2. Because we didn't always agree with her, it was incompetent plagiarism.

What can I say? The lady also thought that smoking was "life affirming". :lol:

[Khornet]

No apology needed.
Still looking for Mr. Glover's book.

[Dorrin79]

Rand's problem with libertarianism was that it was not founded on the same first principles as Objectivism.

Libertarianism states, more or less, that Liberty = Good

Objectivism states that Reason & Individualism = Good, and Reason and Individualism require Liberty to flourish. Ergo, Liberty = Good

A pretty fine distinction, in my opinion, and one that never seemed important to me.

Hard-line Objectivists get riled up over this sort of thing, but most of us (and most libertarians) could care less.

We both pursue the same means and the same end, even if our reason is slightly different.

As a side point, Libertarian Socialism is an impossibility. What most people who claim that label mean is that they want Socialism without the Gulags, or more precisely, redistribution of wealth/government control of economy without elimination of Civil Liberties.

History seems to indicate that the two are inseperable, though. One cannot seperate Economic freedom from Personal freedom. That was one of the many accurate observations of Rand, that is still ignored by both the Left and the Right.