Libertarianism is the "Marxism on the Right"

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
rudolfher
rudolfher's picture

Here's an article from the American Conservative calling libertarianism "Marxism on the Right". I have always called libertarians "Bizarro Marxists".

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/

 

Comments

Poor Richard
Poor Richard's picture
Add this to the forum

Add this to the forum registration form as "must read and agree" before registration will be accepted.

rudolfher
rudolfher's picture
I don't understand your

I don't understand your comment. I am a regsitered user. Is there something else I have to do?

polycarp2
ruldolfer, you are fine...and

ruldolfer, you are fine...and I found your link one of the best refutations of libertarianism I've ever read.

poly - moderator

DRC
DRC's picture
While being good on what is

While being good on what is wrong with Libertarianism, particularly in the economic sphere, his balance between "selfishness" and "altruism" and the assumption that freedom is "balanced" by the need to control laziness and sloth are pure conservative and, in my opinion, fail to get the nature of freedom right.

Freedom is not an absolute in isolation.  St. Paul said that it needed to be linked to love and mutuality or it would lead to us "devouring one another."  Paine said that "freedom is for all, or none."  This makes all the individualistic reflections on freedom half-truths at best.

Symbiosis is liberation from the either/or and even from the some of both instead of both/and.  The idea that we are only for some degree of freedom countered by some degree of parental control is only what our "trainers" and "managers" want.  Freedom to love sees self-interest in more realistic terms than altruism as mutuality where we are more than the sum of our parts.  Again, it is not "selfishness" balanced by a charitable view of others.  It is a consistently mutual sense of self-interest.

rudolfher
rudolfher's picture
Another paradox of

Another paradox of libertarianism is that they seem to be okay with Federal Government assuming the role of national defense. But isn't a majority of our budget spent on National Defense (to include Intelligence and Homeland Security?) So who gets to decide how much national defense we need? We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars. Where will the money come from if they abolish taxes? And if we don't spend it, what good are unfettered freedoms if another country or government can just come in and wipe theirs out?

Also, the libertarian platform recognizes one of the only valid roles of government is adjudication. So now we will inherit a super-class of court administrators, judges, lawyers, etc. Basically they will be creating a "Inner Party" who will wield incredible power.  Anyone ever read "The Trial" by Kakfka which chillingly described an chaos rife society that was basically a totalitarian legali-tocrisy.

Libertarianism just doesn't make sense. I don't see why anyone with a developmental age beyond 16 subsribes to it.

Poor Richard
Poor Richard's picture
rudolfher wrote: I don't

rudolfher wrote:

I don't understand your comment. I am a regsitered user. Is there something else I have to do?

Sorry I worried you. I was joking. The article was so good I meant to suggest --not to you personally but to the forum wizards-- that they make agreeing with the article a condition for new members to sign up.

Great article!!!

Poor Richard

Poor Richard
Poor Richard's picture
DRC wrote: While being good

DRC wrote:

While being good on what is wrong with Libertarianism, particularly in the economic sphere, his balance between "selfishness" and "altruism" and the assumption that freedom is "balanced" by the need to control laziness and sloth are pure conservative and, in my opinion, fail to get the nature of freedom right.

Yes but the obvious conservative slant is half the beauty. If it were straight objective logic I don't think it could be as persuasive with those who most need to get it.

DRC wrote:
Freedom is not an absolute in isolation.  St. Paul said that it needed to be linked to love and mutuality or it would lead to us "devouring one another."  Paine said that "freedom is for all, or none."  This makes all the individualistic reflections on freedom half-truths at best.

Mutuality, yes. But love is too much to expect of a whole diverse population this side of the millenium. Paine one, St. Paul zero.

Poor Richard

Poor Richard
Poor Richard's picture
rudolfher

rudolfher wrote:

Libertarianism just doesn't make sense. I don't see why anyone with a developmental age beyond 16 subsribes to it.

You said it first so I'm jumping on. In my opinion no one with a developmental age beyond 16 DOES subscribe to it.

Poor Richard

MrK
MrK's picture
" libertarianism is basically

" libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. "

Marxism is the most centralized and (in practice, as Stalinism and Maoism) authoritarian form of socialism. Therefore, any analogy with libertarianism is incorrect.

rudolfher
rudolfher's picture
MrK wrote: " libertarianism

MrK wrote:

" libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. "

Marxism is the most centralized and (in practice, as Stalinism and Maoism) authoritarian form of socialism. Therefore, any analogy with libertarianism is incorrect.

From the article -

"If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism... Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society."

Also, the article makes the point anyone who did not want to live under the do-or-die authoritarian lasisez-faire libertarian society has absolutely no choice unless they move out of the country.

In this respect, the author calls libertarianism "Marxism on the Right". I think the comparison is well merited.

 

bufffalo1
bufffalo1's picture
Poor Richard wrote:Add this

Poor Richard wrote:
Add this to the forum registration form as "must read and agree" before registration will be accepted.

So, if one doesn't prescribe to the proper paradigm espoused  on these threads one needn't apply.  Just as I thought.  Good luck ,Bro!!! See ya!!!

Kerry
Kerry's picture
Sorry, bro', you just told me

Sorry, bro', you just told me of your exit here.  Maybe you're right (judging from the person you are responding to)--this is all about having the 'right orthodox thinking'....yep, no age of enlightenment left here, bro'--now, as we cower back into the dark ages ruled by 'scientific dogma' and 'appropriate attitudes', you can kiss the 'priority of individual rights in government' good-bye....NO side that I see is emphasizing that....and the ones that are are doing it more for defining 'corporations as individuals' than 'individuals as individuals'....

 

Poor Richard
Poor Richard's picture
Far Left

Far Left Totalitarians......

will bend all whiny individualists to our will.

Quote:
Click here >SUBMIT NOW!

    (Resistance is futile...)