Sunday, November 29, 2009

Garry Reed compares reaction to blog post to storming the Bastille

When I read the earlier piece on, Calling all Stalinist-Jeffersonian-Bozoian Libertarians, I didn't quite agree with all that Garry Reed shared, but he was expressing his opinion.

Apparently quite a few took issue with his piece, hence, Calling all laissez-faire sovereign individual Libertarians was penned, where Reed stated in part:

The satirically titled article Calling all Stalinist-Jeffersonian-Bozoian Libertarians published on Wednesday immediately attracted the ire of contemporary socialism's apologists who stormed the "add a Comment" box on the article's page like they were storming the Bastille.

The article posited that in today's politico-philosophical world, anyone who embraced the oxymoron of "libertarian socialism" should have no problem with accepting the absurdity of "Stalinist-Jeffersonian-Bozoian Libertarianism."

The socialists (or "progressives," that being the modern, trendy camouflage word for "socialist") angrily pontificated that the libertarian label belonged exclusively to them, that the socialist usage could be traced back 150-200 years, that the libertarian label was stolen from the socialists in 1971 by the Libertarian Party (many non-libertarians harbor the illusion that the LP is somehow the beginning of modern libertarian's existence), and that "anarcho-capitalist" rather than "libertarian socialism" is the true oxymoron (because socialists make no distinction between "capitalism" which is accepted by libertarians as a synonym for voluntary free trade while "corporatism" is an invention of coercive government and is therefore rejected by libertarians, but that's another article).

Perhaps I'm a bit more of a realist, but I think the amount of time we waste on arguing about labels and who is really what just takes us away from some of the larger issues out there that perhaps solutions could be found for. Or at a minimum we'd know which solutions are not going to ever be agreed on.

Each person's concept of what their "political label" is can vary, there is no set formula as it if you believe A then you are this and if you believe B you are this, because at times people believe or don't believe in both A and B at the same time. It's all a matter of degrees. To some, I am very liberal, to others I am very libertarian, to others? I am no way even close to their concept of what a liberal or a libertarian would be. Yet to me? I'm still the same, liberal on some issues and libertarian on others...

No comments: