Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
He does admit earlier that the Democrats are now the party of free trade. It's a start.
|
His piece is a complaint about what has happened to his party, and it's clear that it's still his party.
Libertarianism isn't a substantive philosophy. It's a preference for having unelected judges make law, law which tends to favored moneyed interests, rather than having the law made by elected legislatures, which tend to support things that the masses like. The reason why it appeals to so few people is that not many people are both rich and feel a need to dress up their self-interest in a purportedly abstracted set of ideals. Many rich people are perfectly happy to act out of naked self-interest instead of veiled self-interest. What's the point in being rich if you can't be clear about who you're sticking it to, and why?
Quote:
|
But this doesn't undo the fact that, in aggregate, in general character, both parties are defined by and filled with groups of people who wish to compel others to live as they want them to live. That's authoritarian.
|
First, that's not really what "authoritarian" means. Second, to say that either party is "defined by" people "who wish to compel others live as they want them to live" is tripe. I mean, it's just complete nonsense.
