Libertarianism: Marxism of the Right?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

But this guy doesn't. He just slams and slams. This is all too common these days, people running around with axes taking swings at any sort of discipline or belief system as if its virtuous to do so and not attempt to defend their own position in contrast to the one they are attempting to tear down.
His format is weak and ineffective because it doesn't solve anything or invites dialogue. Just another crybaby who is screaming for a bottle to shut him up.

I think perhaps you totally miss the point of what Locke is trying to say. This article seems to indicate that he thinks libertarianism challenges any sense of virtue and order, and that people would not be capable of restraining themselves and making their own decisions with the gift of freedom.

Personally I don't find his arguments to be horribly flawed with the exception that I think he is thinking too much in terms of theory instead of actual practice.

For example:

Quote:

Libertarians need to be asked some hard questions. What if a free society needed to draft its citizens in order to remain free? What if it needed to limit oil imports to protect the economic freedom of its citizens from unfriendly foreigners? What if it needed to force its citizens to become sufficiently educated to sustain a free society? What if it needed to deprive landowners of the freedom to refuse to sell their property as a precondition for giving everyone freedom of movement on highways? What if it needed to deprive citizens of the freedom to import cheap foreign labor in order to keep out poor foreigners who would vote for socialistic wealth redistribution?

If libertarianism were to become a widespread following or major political party then I'd assume these kinds of things would be addressed and the overall strength of the system would be more practical.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

If this is the case, I have a question. What is the source by which the terms virtue & order is defined that gives a backbone to what was stated.
It helps me to know where the critique starts and attempts to finish.

The author's point isn't to show how order is currently in comparison to how it would be under libertarianism. It is to suggest that the libertarianism philosophy when applied would have negative consequences. Much like Marxism, it all sounds good in theory.

I really think the following paragraph addresses your question to an extent:

Quote:

Libertarians are also naïve about the range and perversity of human desires they propose to unleash. They can imagine nothing more threatening than a bit of Sunday-afternoon sadomasochism, followed by some recreational drug use and work on Monday. They assume that if people are given freedom, they will gravitate towards essentially bourgeois lives, but this takes for granted things like the deferral of gratification that were pounded into them as children without their being free to refuse. They forget that for much of the population, preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs, failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock. Society is dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint. Ironically, this often results in internal restraints being replaced by the external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom, not more.

However, as you'll notice, no particular order or virtue are clearly suggested. There's implication in lack of virtue in the quote above and from that you can derive what the author considers good virtues (no overindulgence with alcohol, no use of drugs, no premarital pregnancies, etc). Of course with libertarianism, virtue is relative since the base concept is that you are free to do what you like as long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others. The author is arguing that concept and claiming that when applied it would cause disorder and also that order can be found in self-restraint and a strong family.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I find it interesting how in the past few years I've seen a lot of young people switch from Republican to Libertarian. I know that I personally was majorly turned off by the sheer number of scandals as of late. It'll be interesting to see if the party regains some of its followers after 2008.

The human mind often groups things, categorizes, and tries to make them more efficient or understandable. An unfortunate side effect from this is labelling and even things such as racism. I don't care for it much either because I believe that most people don't completely agree with a particular philosophy 100% (unless they wrote it).

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.