|18 Oct 2008 @ 02:30, by Unknown|
Has Libertarianism become another word for Neo-Fascism?
So claims Bill Dunlap:
"Libertarianism is fascism tarted up in the American Flag. The original name for fascism was corporationism because fascism is ruled by the corporations. Hopefully, the discerning reader will see the parallels between Libertarianism and Neoconservatism, and realize that they are two faces of the same worthless coin. Libertarianism organizes non-conformists to support Neoconservative goals, and those goals are no less than the corporate tyranny of the United States."
Andy Singer here, is suggesting that Libertarianism is Anarchy for Rich People:
"A Libertarian is guaranteed to do nothing to threaten corporate profits or corporate control. A Libertarian president will not increase funding to the starving watch dog agencies, or sign new environmental bills into laws. A Libertarian president can be depended on to support further cuts to our social safety net, veto national health, and privatize Social Security."
Are Libertarians "just Republicans who want to smoke dope," like Ascocial Ape whimsically put it on the follow-up thread? Or are Libertarians still Anarchists like Optimus claims:
It’s precisely the same. The only difference is that anarchists think that there’s no problem that can’t be solved with anarcho-syndicalist co-ops, and libertarians think that there’s no problem that can’t be solved by free-market competition. They’re both delusional, and in surprisingly similar ways.
Hmmm... tough one! And, as Beansworth highlights it in her comment, it comes with a catch 22:
Libertarians would like to eliminate all authority except the unfettered, sovereign right to property, which in fact, makes them despotic governors of their own property. Anarchists would eliminate not only centralized government, but also sovereign property rights.
Both systems, though, require some way of enforcing the rules, which mandates the need for a government, otherwise you end up with a simple might-makes-right form of anarchy, which is not really what either side wants.