Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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?
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.
|
I think Libertarianism appeals to people who see the masses as fools who'd vote themselves into bankruptcy if allowed. In this regard, I tend to see a lot of merit in Libertarian arguments. We're a Republic and not a pure Democracy for a reason. A true Democracy would be a disaster.
But this lesson cuts both ways. Those "fuck the poor" sorts you describe, and the merchant class strivers behind them, have been pigs. They've taken too much for too long, and insulated themselves from the risk of their behaviors (Hi, Wall Street) to such an extent the statement, "the system is rigged" holds a lot of credibility.
In this regard, Libertarians are aligned against much of what the rich rely on to remain rich today: Rentier and Crony Capitalism. Libertarians don't care about you, or your family. But they don't desire to find a way to fuck the poor over and make them their debt slaves. There is a fairness to libertarians. It's the coldest of comforts, but it's there.
Regarding the meaning of authoritarianism, I know. I apply a broader meaning. I think anyone who thinks he knows what best for his fellow man and therefore thinks he has the right to enforce rules against his fellow man has authoritarian tendencies. He may couch his position as benignly as he likes, but at core, he's a dangerously arrogant person.
I think most people would do better to behave a lot differently than they do. But I feel much more strongly that they have the right to succeed or fail doing as they like, and I have no right to try to enshrine my personal tastes on how one should live in code or regulation of any kind. The right to free speech, where I might convince, cajole, manipulate, insult, or beg people to do as I think they should is all the right I have, or should have, over them.
