tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461028406488684699.post5734714170335512486..comments2023-07-28T05:17:56.507-07:00Comments on Moorfield Storey Blog: Classical Liberalism? It's Not That Simple!Moorfield Storey Institutehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11847389834688255658noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461028406488684699.post-91508990722068731382011-07-06T18:18:09.747-07:002011-07-06T18:18:09.747-07:00Good post! And good comment, starchild. I'm ba...Good post! And good comment, starchild. I'm basically anti-libertarian, but you seem like reasonable people :) I see this is a couple months old, so hopefully this comment will be read.<br /><br />I just found this blog post while searching for the stock phrase 'its not that simple,' in relation to libertarianism. This has become a kind of a punchline in 'religious' arguments about libertarianism, communism, or just plain religion where the phrase becomes the response to any seemingly well-reasoned argument. <br /><br />In response to starchild, I think you hit the nail on the head in at least one regard: <br /><br />"...the groups through which we seek these changes do not reflect in their structures and organizational cultures the values we are seeking, we've got a problem."<br /><br />This is why I think libertarianism, regardless of whether or not it's even a practical means of organizing society, is not only a wrong position, but an extremely *dangerous* one to take in the context of our political and economic climate today. A 'libertarian' vote is only a vote in favor of the wealthy. It's not a 'selfish' vote, as Ayn Rand would have it, but it's really a very selfless and generous position to take, as the only people you are helping are the upper stratum of society. I say this only because the current system of mega-corporations, where there is virtually no competition in many industries, makes it unfit as a *starting point* for libertarianism. The more we deregulate and the more we place the military and intelligence community at their personal disposal, the more powerful and anti-competitive they become, and that is no closer to your goal of a libertarian society.<br /><br />So you can't just start with deregulation and elimination of taxes. You have bring the playing field back to a state where libertarianism can even begin to be effective. Ironically, this means biting the bullet and supporting the 'far-left' progressive cause! Boo-ya!Joe K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08082866508008968769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461028406488684699.post-87863784583199916092011-04-13T04:51:28.932-07:002011-04-13T04:51:28.932-07:00Another terrific, thoughtful post! Who writes this...Another terrific, thoughtful post! Who writes this blog? Do you have other writings elsewhere? What libertarian groups are you involved with?<br /><br />I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the Grassroots Libertarians Caucus (http://www.groups.yahoo.com/groups/grassrootslibertarians) and the battle for the U.S. Libertarian Party. Despite its problems (some of which you very cogently addressed in your "Disaster of me libertarianism" post, I think the LPUS has a critical role to play in the freedom movement.<br /><br />If we look at uprisings around the world, we will often see political parties leading them or playing key roles. The success of generally non-violent revolutions typically depends on getting large numbers of people out in the streets to protest, and mass-participation organizations are needed to make this happen.<br /><br />Political parties are ideally designed for this role, because they are natural entry-points via which previously apolitical people who become upset with the status quo can get involved and seek change. They are organizations designed for mass participation by large numbers of people, and compared to think tanks, non-profits, and the like, which tend to be run by small groups of professionals or experts, they have more potential for a democratic, bottom-up model of governance.<br /><br />Since this is the kind of governance we presumably want for society at large, it is important that the structure of organizations which serve to bring about political change be empowering to the people. As Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world." Or as Marshall McLuhan said, "The medium (i.e. the structure) is the message." <br /><br />If we claim we want a world of individual freedom in which governments are limited in power, transparent, and accountable to the people, but the groups through which we seek these changes do not reflect in their structures and organizational cultures the values we are seeking, we've got a problem. The play which we imagine ourselves putting on is not the same play for which we are rehearsing!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com