|
The counterpart, on the left, is an anarchist. There are also anarcho-capitalists, and anarcho-syndicalists. Whether or not you're a right-leaning, or a left-leaning libertarian is really tested by your "critique" of the problem.
I adhere very strictly to a feminist-marxist critique of -- well, just about anything -- from movies to politics to medicine to relationships. I study critical theory, so I also look at contextual epistemology, meaning that I am ever aware that my own ideas are constructs, which leads me to being a pragmatist, which also means I end up siding with the left, or Democrats A LOT -- but I also "side" with a lot of conservative philosophies.
This threatens to get long, but I'll try my best to make it short.
I believe that, first and foremost, the rich could not have concentrated so much wealth without the "amazing dumbasses" (my term for uneducated, unaware consumers), who provide them with both customers and labor. Hence, my syndicalism -- which is a system wherin the workers have solidarity, much like unions, but maybe less organized (to avoid hierarchy), but much more UNIFIED -- and proactive in providing labor to companies who are responsible and treat workers well and pay them fairly, and striking against those, who do not. I also firmly believe in civil liberties -- and perhaps those beyond the traditional left, or the "marxist influenced" left.
Now, the capital-"L" Libertarians have some problems. First, most of them are really disaffected Republicans -- which is most likely what led you to believe that you have to be a Republican to be a Libertarian. Case in point: if you minus God and sentimentality, a libertarian viewpoint would be "pro-choice," but the Libertarian party had a party split over "pro-life" and pro-choice, at their 2000 convention. Does this make sense? Not really. I think a lot of the devotees of the LP are just extreme GOPpers, who don't want to pay any taxes, but still believe in the "cultural supremacism" of the right -- which, I would argue isn't very libertarian at all, but rather fascist. Then you also really do have the college kids who want marijuana to be legalized.
"Personal responsibility" gets thrown around on the right -- and most leftists immediately come to the defense of poor or minorities, and the poor, exploited middle class (in their treeless cul-de-sacs and SUVs). But the truth is, "personal responsibility" applies to everyone: companies have as much a responsibility (in theory) to pay workers fairly, treat the environment with respect, and to contribute to the society in which they operate -- people have a responsibility to DISCRIMINATE both where they put their dollar and their labor, and they too have the responsibility to contribute and consume in ways that are less harmful to the environment. Do you think, by and large, that most people are exercising this right? Or have, over the last couple hundred years? Because I look around, and my case is made.
Now. This is where it gets screwed up, because human tendency comes into play, which is wily to begin with, but this is what always screws up ideology. Ideology has to take place in a vacuum. In reality, people are real assholes -- or conversely -- they are nice and can get taken advantage of. People are also lazy and greedy and dishonest and fearful and akin to prurience and instant gratification.
Government, in my opinion, and the opinion of many anarcho-capitalists, syndicalists and libertarians, exists AS MUCH to legitimize and protect the concentration of wealth, as it does to help the poor and "level the playing field." Government is prone to be controlled by the rich, the powerful, and the well-connected, and our lovely government has violated so many classical liberal tenets, that any one interested in the "status quo" is not a libertarian or for "freedom" (despite what the GOP wants you to think). Militarization, the police state, pre-emptive war, foreign policy and intelligence as a corporate arm, anti-union laws, federal "regulatory" agencies, and court decisions granting corporations human status are all things that violate the tenets of classical liberalism -- and have been put into place to LEGITIMIZE and PROTECT the concentration of wealth.
This is a key part of libertarian philosophy, and is very important, for those who automatically accuse libertarians of "ignoring corporate greed," -- because they don't wish to IGNORE it, they wish that control of it lay in the hands of the "educated consumer."
Libertarian philosophy relies on decentralization, consumer responsibility, inherent virtue, non-governmental alliances and unions -- and actually has a lot in common with final stages of communism (read -- NOT state socialism, which is government ownership of property).
Here's the problem with that, though: decentralization, meaning stuff like "the free state project" and "the free town project" are quaint and wonderful-sounding things, intended to create enclaves for like-minded people, who can live, basically, however they want, as long as they uphold the Constitution, which is really not that hard. In the Libertarian fantasy (which is also much like the leftist fantasy), goods and services are produced and exchanged locally -- you know your butcher, you know your breadmaker, etc. The problem is though, that we are so nationalized through our technology, our resources and energy, and our consumer behemoths, that it is too freakin' late. In addition, "local" economics is good for bread and meat -- but what about cancer treatments, fiber-optics systems, and air travel? Technology IS furthered by concentration of wealth. Even the most staunch hippie homesteader of the "libertarian/leftist" stripe, probably wouldn't turn down anti-cancer drugs, the Internet, or the chance to see the world, through air travel, no?
Of course there were and always have been other ways to do this -- things could have been nationalized by the government and funded at gunpoint, like Soviet technology, but they weren't. And we still have this great technology, we're comfortable, and we've still have a greater modicum of freedom, than in some other countries and systems, now, and throughout history.
We've made this big beautiful terrible mess that is the USA, together, and we have to work on it, together. Ideology is great, but it really has no place in policy. In my opinion, the consumer is as responsible as the trazillionaire, and through inattention, and our own ignorance, we've allowed all this wealth to get concentrated and corporations to run our government.
This is why, even though, I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, marxist-feminist in THEORY, I am actually a rather centrist Democrat in practice. Because, it's too late for ideology. I, of course, have my own practical plan for the nation, which is basically to nationalize the natural resources, and healthcare and schools/colleges, and make everything else a free-for-all. No welfare, no affirmative action, no social security, lower taxes -- simply upholding the Constitution, and producing those lovely "enclaves" where you know the butcher, the baker, etc.
I guess where I align with Republicans is that no one has a "right" to the bounty. Outside of basic healthcare, schooling and light/heat, I really do think everyone should fend for themselves, and that the "nationalization" of everything should fall away, and the police state be dismantled, and the courts merely there to sentence criminals, provide recourse for ACTUAL damages, resolve civil disputes and uphold the Constitution. And corporate responsibility should be instilled by the "educated consumer."
One of my biggest pet peeves is WHY THE FUCK would anyone pay for something that is priced beyond its "use value?" This means just about anything brand named or symbolized, such as J.Crew, GAP, etc., and jewelry, antiques, luxury goods/cars/homes. That, to me, is as big of a travesty as an Enron executive on his worst day. I can see shelling out a little more for American-made goods, but come on people. We ARE part of the problem.
Where I DON'T align with Republicans is in their social policies, having aligned with a bunch of crazy-ass, Mammon worshipping Christians that want to bring about the apocalypse, or create a cultural supremacism. That shit is scary -- and the superbreed of big-money, big-dominionism politicians and devotees that are growing in the GOP is, in my opinion, an emergency situation. I also don't believe that the market "straightens everything out." That's ridiculous.
Anyway, I know this is long, and confusing, and like all libertarians, I have a problem communicating my ideas, because they are really complex. But the important thing to re-state is that my somewhat RADICAL ideology, makes me, in reality, a pragmatist, and I wouldn't trust anyone who is trying to rule by ideology -- on the right, or the left. It's OK to have convictions, but then come to the table and compromise.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
