Hmm. She makes a lot of generalizations and seems to misunderstand a lot of what libertarianism is actually striving for. To call Bush's (Or Reagan's) administration libertarian in it's actions or leanings is to totally ignore much of what each of them did or have done. What has Bush done? Increase capital punishment rates (TX)? Build up the war on drugs (Reagan and Bush)? Faith based government funding (Bush)? Cutting taxes does not make one libertarian. Basically, the republicans try to spend as much money as the democrats...they just spend it on different programs (ie. not monolithic social programs...think pork barrel). Also, most attempts at deregulation these days do nothing of the sort (ie. California's energy industry deregulation).
Libertarianism isn't the end all be all of political philosophy, but tossing it off as being over simplistic seems rather unwise.
/me shrugs
i would tend to agree with your point that she misunderstands libertarianism (but so do most "libertarians" i've spoken with). that aside, i thought it was an interesting argument against blind dogmatic industry deregulation.
true...most blind dogmatic solutions to problems are usually poor. I'm glad you posted it...it was an interesting read. I'm in an environment where I don't hear from the critics that often. It's good to hear other viewpoints.
Hmm... that article has nothing to do with Liberatarianism whatsoever, as far as my meek education as told me. Those pesky libs aren't deregulation, because if dereg can be shown to hurt someone then it is anti Lib. Lib is pro-people uber alles. Pro-queer, pro-NRA, pro-this and its opposite. Do whatever you want insofar as it harms no one else. That means an endless cycle of checks and balances to see if someone's harmed by your actions. Philosophically is it almost sacredly egalitarian, and almost chaotic systems theory as applied to thought. But in practice, I bet this leads to a) paralysis or b) weak Liberatarianism. The latter is typified by "do whatever you want insofar as it harms no one else, and what I'm doing isn't harming anyone worth caring about."
God, what I have learned from comics and tv ;-)
Hi, I'm a grade 12 politics student at Jarvis Collegiate in TOronto, I was wondering if someone here had any useful sites on liberatarianism that I could use for a project I'm doing? ivanaduya @ hotmail . com thx.
"I vana du ya" at hotmail.com. Nice freak'n email address. Hey... Is that the one you put on job applications, resumes, and the street corner you work on?
Hey Sarah... you learned sarcasm, and how to say aweful things at aweful times, but there's no studio audience laugh track to back you up. Doesn't it suck?
comments
Mark Boudreau - Fri 07 Sep 2001 09:37:53
Hmm. She makes a lot of generalizations and seems to misunderstand a lot of what libertarianism is actually striving for. To call Bush's (Or Reagan's) administration libertarian in it's actions or leanings is to totally ignore much of what each of them did or have done. What has Bush done? Increase capital punishment rates (TX)? Build up the war on drugs (Reagan and Bush)? Faith based government funding (Bush)? Cutting taxes does not make one libertarian. Basically, the republicans try to spend as much money as the democrats...they just spend it on different programs (ie. not monolithic social programs...think pork barrel). Also, most attempts at deregulation these days do nothing of the sort (ie. California's energy industry deregulation). Libertarianism isn't the end all be all of political philosophy, but tossing it off as being over simplistic seems rather unwise. /me shrugsanders pearson - Fri 07 Sep 2001 09:38:53
i would tend to agree with your point that she misunderstands libertarianism (but so do most "libertarians" i've spoken with). that aside, i thought it was an interesting argument against blind dogmatic industry deregulation.Mark Boudreau - Fri 07 Sep 2001 09:39:53
true...most blind dogmatic solutions to problems are usually poor. I'm glad you posted it...it was an interesting read. I'm in an environment where I don't hear from the critics that often. It's good to hear other viewpoints.sarah - Fri 07 Sep 2001 09:40:53
Hmm... that article has nothing to do with Liberatarianism whatsoever, as far as my meek education as told me. Those pesky libs aren't deregulation, because if dereg can be shown to hurt someone then it is anti Lib. Lib is pro-people uber alles. Pro-queer, pro-NRA, pro-this and its opposite. Do whatever you want insofar as it harms no one else. That means an endless cycle of checks and balances to see if someone's harmed by your actions. Philosophically is it almost sacredly egalitarian, and almost chaotic systems theory as applied to thought. But in practice, I bet this leads to a) paralysis or b) weak Liberatarianism. The latter is typified by "do whatever you want insofar as it harms no one else, and what I'm doing isn't harming anyone worth caring about." God, what I have learned from comics and tv ;-)Veronica - Wed 01 Dec 2004 21:24:07
Hi, I'm a grade 12 politics student at Jarvis Collegiate in TOronto, I was wondering if someone here had any useful sites on liberatarianism that I could use for a project I'm doing? ivanaduya @ hotmail . com thx.TC - Thu 02 Dec 2004 03:47:17
"I vana du ya" at hotmail.com. Nice freak'n email address. Hey... Is that the one you put on job applications, resumes, and the street corner you work on? Hey Sarah... you learned sarcasm, and how to say aweful things at aweful times, but there's no studio audience laugh track to back you up. Doesn't it suck?