[Peace-discuss] Libertarian/Anarchist

[E. Wayne Johnson]

One of the most interesting things to me about this passage from Chomsky 
is that he associates unbridled capitalism with extreme authoritarianism. 
But isn't  extreme socialism likewise associated with coercion and 
unbridled exercise of authority?  After all, the Nazis were "National 
Socialists".

I don/t agree with Chomsky's opinion that American libertarians favour 
public schools and killing people in far off foreign lands.  All of the 
libertarians I know are against war, and particularly 
interventionist/imperialist war.   There is a tendency for libertarians 
to shun the public school system in favour of homeschooling or private 
schools and they are quick to point out the advantages to their 
children.  (My boys attend ML King School in Urbana, and Alice, who is 
4, and reads with understanding at the 4th grade level, will start 
kindergarten there this fall.) 

But it is true that some that I would characterize as "neocons" will say 
that they are libertarian.   Maybe we need an absurd new category for 
"Chicken-hawk Libertarians".

Of course I dont agree with Murray Rothbard on issues like abortion as 
he fails to recognize the rights of the innocent individual.  Rothbard 
does provide some quite useful perspective,
but I really think I prefer Locke's theologic libertarianism to the 
secular libertarianism of Rothbard.   Perhaps Rothbard's secularism is 
his fundamental error.

Extremism might not be a vice, but can tend toward being dysfunctional.  
And moderation, although viewed as virtuous by many, often lacks 
sufficient energy to cause anything to move.

There is the option of entrepreneurship and self-employment.  We are not 
constrained to work for others, but little else seems to occur to many 
folks.
Why not a beneficent capitalism in which every one has his own property 
but uses it freely to the good of others, as he sees fit? 
Is a socialist libertarian capitalism sort of a Dr. Seuss item like a 
noodle eating poodle fighting battles in a bottle? 
Perhaps I don't have a good definition of capitalism.


C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Man: What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," 
> exactly?
>
> Chomsky: There's no difference, really. I think they're the same 
> thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United 
> States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in 
> this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled 
> capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European 
> libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a 
> socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you 
> have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority.
>
> If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to 
> rent themselves in order to survive. Now, you can say, "they rent 
> themselves freely, it's a free contract" -- but that's a joke. If your 
> choice is, "do what I tell you or starve," that's not a choice -- it's 
> in fact what was commonly referred to as wage slavery in more 
> civilized times, like the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for 
> example.
>
> The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though 
> nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a 
> society that worked by American libertarian principles would 
> self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take 
> it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when 
> somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: "No, I'm a 
> libertarian, I'm against that tax" -- but of course, I'm still in 
> favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and 
> killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.
>
> Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard -- 
> and if you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so 
> full of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is a 
> world where you don't have roads because you don't see any reason why 
> you should cooperate in building a road that you're not going to use: 
> if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who 
> are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to 
> ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's 
> automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want 
> to live in a world like that? It's a world built on hatred.
>
> The whole thing's not even worth talking about, though. First of all, 
> it couldn't function for a second -- and if it could, all you'd want 
> to do is get out, or commit suicide or something. But this is a 
> special American aberration, it's not really serious.
>
> (from Understanding Power)
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>