From: Elizabeth Childs (echilds@linex.com)
Date: Fri Jul 02 1999 - 10:08:12 MDT
Michael Lorrey said:
> I personally don't comprehend how someone can be a libertarian and NOT be a rugged
> individualist. Moorcock is apparently under the delusion that it is possible.
I would argue that one can not be a rugged individualist without being a
libertarian, but that one could be a libertarian without being a rugged
individualist ("libertarian" as we use the word here, not this weird
communist libertarianism). I have always told my liberal friends that
libertarianism was the best way to accomplish their goals.
Libertarianism is the system with the best chance of ending racism,
improving standards of living for the poorest people, improving
education, keeping people out of jail, and reducing crime. There is a
case for liberty that is purely utilitarian.
A utilitarian (who is a collectivist by definition) could study how the
state actually works and conclude that the government is a hindrance to
their goals rather than a help.
A person could also believe that everyone "should" form voluntary
socialist cooperatives, but that it would be wrong to use force to do
so, and consider legislation equivalent to violence. I'm sure many
American socialists would agree that violence shouldn't be used to force
people to adopt these cooperatives, and haven't yet come to understand
that government intervention is force. (The fact that they still think
there's a "should" means they're behind on their General Semantics, but
I digress.)
The first type of libertarian is pretty common. I think I've seen one
or two of the second type out here in Berkeley. They are rare.
Elizabeth Childs, dainty individualist
echilds@linex.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:22 MST