[Peace-discuss] Libertarian/Anarchist

[E. Wayne Johnson]

"everyone for themselves in a war of all against all."

I am not sure how you arrive at this statement, Laurie, unless you are 
intending it as an ironic quip.

Hobbes sure enough "ain't no libertarian", and "everyone for themselves" 
is not Christian.

LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
> And what Chomsky says even holds for Christian libertarianism.  With God on
> their side, they march into a Hobbesian hell of everyone for themselves in a
> war of all against all.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
> Estabrook
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:07 AM
> To: peace-discuss
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Libertarian/Anarchist
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>