 |
| |
|
|
Buck Birdseed
|
 |
Khoon Ki Pyasi Dayan (1988)
Nov 2000
time: 05:29
|
|
I started off as a faintly marxist (though never expressely communist) moderate lefty, a member of Sweden's Young Left. In the the last term of my first year of university I read two books that changed me into a well more radical person: Nicolo Macchiavelli's "Discourses" and Anne Phillips's "Democracy and Difference". I wrote an essay comparing the two to each other. I started to read up more on the civic republican tradition and its eventual feminist connections, and discovered that it held many of the answers I'd been looking for in terms of justifying many lefty policies in rational terms. To come into line with this ideology (which, admittedly, didn't change my policy-based values that much) I after careful reflection abandoned my pacifism, my relative opposition to multiculturalism and my ambivalent attitude to constitutionalism. I also started to construct polemics against the weak points of both liberalist and socialist left-wing traditions to show my distinctions from either.
Last edited by Buck Birdseed on 22-06-2003 at 02:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Templar
|
 |
People's Republic of the East Village
Oct 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
quote:
So I can pollute lands I don't own under libertarianism? Hmm... |
Yes, since you're supposedly not infringing on anyone's rights, as it they don't belong to anyone. Unless you want to say that libertarianism opposes all emissions into the atmosphere, the seas, and the rivers.  |
Most of the time, a libertarian will say by creating a property entitlement in something, the person with that entitlement will protect the something from others. So give me a property entitlement to water, for instance, and I won't allow other people to **** it up - this is Berzerker's point I take it. And if you want to see how well propertizing water works - check out the example set by Bechtel in Bolivia (a report about this will be coming out next year in the Fordham International Law Journal).
Good luck propertizing the air though. Putting aside how this entitlement would be distributed, how you would enforce such a property regime is beyond me. Moreover, propertizing air could cause some real problems for poor people who can't afford to pay. But then again, if you don't work hard enough, why should you be entitled to air?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Templar
|
|
People's Republic of the East Village
Oct 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Templar -
Obviously most people are helped in achieving their goals by being born with the genetic tools (how you plan to "equalise" that should be interesting), but Jim Crow and it's lingering effects were government infringements upon the free market. So you're pointing to the unwanted effects of government infringement on the market as a reason to continue infringing upon the market. |
Typical libertarian claptrap. Its one thing to distribute jobs based on ability to do the job, and another to say that through accident of birth that you should be foreclosed from a comfortable middle class lifestyle.
As for government interference - do you really think if the Jim Crow laws were abolished that restaurants would have opened their doors to black customers to get their money? Even if the owners were rational enough to do so (it's not like they liked black people), white customers would have continued to go to white establishments. In fact businesses in Houston later (in an unusual fit of rationality) demanded anti-segregation laws behind the scenes. This so they could (1) capture the black dollar, (2) serve blacks because "they had to under law, sorry about that fellow crackers", (3) nobody could go white only and screw up the arrangement that was serving everyone.
More importantly, the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow had left black people in a very unfair position vis-a-vis the marketplace. So the people via the government screwed them, but should not take any responsibility in correcting their mistake? You see, that's the problem with libertarianism - it assumes that startin gposition doesn't matter even though starting position is very important.
quote:
Ah, so all that stuff about racism you used as a reason to "grow up" and away from libertarianism had nothing to do with what libertarians advocate. Instead, it's about "equal opportunity"...But I'm glad to see you admit that you don't want a color blind government either... |
It wasn't just the actual exposure to racism that made me grow up. But it did radically change my thinking on race and class in the US. This in turn put Rawls and Marx in a better light while revealing just how shrill Nozick and Locke really were.
quote:
Do you see the irony of pointing to the racism of differential treatment by government based on race only to advocate the same thing? All you've done is switch around the groups being treated differently... |
As long as race is an issue, there can be no color blind system. People operate systems, so the systems are only as good as the people who operate them. If a system leaves no opportunity for the redress of racial issues and racists run the system, there will be no redress for the racism that occurs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
"The Veil of Ignorance" will likely preclude a laissez-faire or libertarian system because the miniscule chance of being rich and among the winners is far overshadowed by being among the vast pool of losers. Likewise, people will prefer a democratic system with strong minority protections. Democratic so the will of the people is follwed, and strong minority protections so that 51% of the people cannot enslave/convert to Christianity/otherwise abuse the other 49%. |
When the Pilgrims arrived, they tried a socialistic system with sharing, community property/crops, and all that. They almost starved to death. They switched to a capitalist system and survived quite well...until the Puritans reared their ugly heads. And when the colonies won their freedom, without forced taxes or a draft, they created a libertarian system (with few exceptions like slavery). Btw, "minority" protections in a democracy? You gotta be kidding. We have a Constitution strictly limiting federal power and look at the monstrosity residing in Washington, D.C.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cinch
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jul 2002
time: 22:29
|
|
When I first started thinking about politics, I was more into the conservative side of things (Reform Party, Preston Manning, who I still like, for some odd reason), simply because that is what I am surrounded by out here.
Gradually, though, as I thought about it, I began to question such things as privatized health care and the destruction of multiculturalism. I gained more respect for different cultures (which was actually a feat for my younger mind, in this whitebread home o' mine). I had debates in school over health care, and I could never understand the kids who would say "But if my dad has the money for his operation now, why can't he get it done before everyone else?".
I don't come from a lower-class family, but I do come from a lower-middle-class family, with lots of connections to both the class 'below' me and the class 'above' me... And I can see the disparities. This has led me to become an advocate of social programs.
However, I'm not a communist. The idea was exciting to me when I first read about it, but even then I could see how it would have myriad problems and disfunctions.
So I've settled into a comfortable little rut, very progressive on social issues, fairly left-wing on economics. Boring, yes, I know, but it's the only way that feels right, for the moment.
(As for which Canadian political party I align myself with at the moment... Couldn't tell ya. Liberals? Too bloated. Alliance? Too corporatist. NDP? Too... flaky. PCs? With Joe Clark: Maybe. With Peter: Don't think so... Looks like it's Natural Law for me!)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
Communism is just another failed attempt to suppress human basic instincts such as greed. It won't work.
I'm very very suprised that people still believe it despite its catastrophic failure in the 20th century.
UR, how much does CCP pay you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
I am moderately to the left and somehow environmentalistic (although I donīt share some fears other environmentalists have, for example their absolute refusal of Nuclear Powerplants)
I had this POV from my youth on and it hasnīt changed much since this time.
What really has changed is my View of american Politics.
From being more supportive of the american Policies in the time where Clinton was President of the USA to becoming a harsh Critic of the American Policies, since George W. Bush jr. introduced purely profitoriented Policies without regards for environmental issues and a strict unilateralism without respecting international treaties.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-06-2003 02:22
I used to be Libertarian, then came Enron. I realized how f*ched up capitalism was and have been a socialist ever since then. 
|