Quote:
Originally posted by bingle
Well, I'm not going to insult you, but maybe I have some insight into why that is!
Libertarians can't really be classified as "right" or "left". A one-dimensional line can't really capture the ideas of the party - if you put their core beliefs somewhere on the line, all the economic statements would be far-right, and the civil liberties would be far-left. So it's a pretty equal balance looked at in that light.
However, the essential philosophy of Libertarianism is the minimization of government control over individual lives. They agree with the Right on supporting free-market capitalism, and with the left in supporting social equality and non-interference in personal affairs. Seen in this light, the right and the left are the inconsistent ones - get the government out of this, but not that, sort of thing.
But also under the essential philosophy, you can see that your beliefs contrast with the essential belief of the Left - that groups should work together for the benefit of the members within. The idea of collective power and responsibility is the core of the Left, while the Libertarian[1] rejects all groups and is a rugged individualist - almost an ethical egoist, in fact.
So, while leftists like myself agree with Libertarian stances on certain issues (drug legalization, free speech, equal rights for minorities and women) we are actually diametrically opposed on a philosophical level; the similar stances are just concidences, if you will. For what it's worth, I think the Libertarians as a party are currently much more honest than either the Democrats or the Republicans... But I am voting Green until we win something! ;-)
Bingle
[1] I am using Libertarian in the strict, capital-L sense, of course... Meaning a member of the Libertarian Party. A libertarian is simply one who fights for liberties; I consider myself a civil libertarian, and you will frequently find the ACLU called the same thing.
|
Your analysis of the libertarian position is skewed which might be the cause of your confusion over the determination that their views are inconsistent. The libertarian position regarding civil rights is not a leftish ideal that all minorities *will* be treated equally. Theirs is a subtle argument that a) laws should not govern morality vis-a-vis an individual's right to choose who he/she employs and b) race should not matter because everyone should be treated as equal under the laws. Now, this does not provide the protection of the law to various minorities that leftist movements have been fighting to maintain for the past fifty years. It's a neo-right movement to eradicate distinction between racial differences. The vast majority of social researchers recognize that while the notion of everyone's equality under the law is a noble ideal the practical implications of eradicating racial distinctions wouldn't result in equal or equitable treatment of ethnic minorities as it would serve to maintain the status quo--white hegemony. Hopefully this small tidbit will give you some insight as to how you were misarticulating the implications of the libertarian platform and concluding they were contradicting themselves. If you want more information then Michael Omi and Howard Winant's
Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s is considered the definitive book on race/ethnic theory. You might like Cornel West's
Race Matters more since it is written from a non-academic style (even though West has been at Princeton and is currently at Harvard) and was listed on the best seller for some time.