Here's a little something to provoke our libertarian friends. I thought it was good for a laugh:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Welcome
to Tom's and Ian's and Sal's blog. We just go round and round, round and round. Choo Choo..
Recent Comments
Labels
- obama (6)
- torture (6)
- media (4)
- afghanistan (2)
- democrats (2)
- economic development (2)
- economy (2)
- environment (2)
- foreign policy (2)
- garzon (2)
- krugman (2)
- military (2)
- bachmann (1)
- big lebowski (1)
- bush (1)
- cheney (1)
- china (1)
- colbert (1)
- coleman (1)
- free speech (1)
- friedman (1)
- gay marriage (1)
- global warming (1)
- gun control (1)
- hannity (1)
- health care (1)
- hitchens (1)
- hobbits (1)
- intelligent design (1)
- iraq (1)
- jimmy carter (1)
- libertarianism (1)
- marijuana (1)
- michael savage (1)
- monkeys (1)
- pelosi (1)
- racism (1)
- ron paul (1)
- science (1)
- sexism (1)
- somalia (1)
- sotomayor (1)
- specter (1)
- supreme court (1)
- swine flu (1)
Funny that you linked that, I just came across the same video earlier today!
ReplyDeleteEven crazier is that article from the Ludwig von Mises (Libertarian) website where a blogger actually makes the case that:
"Somalia has done very well for itself in the 15 years since its government was eliminated. The future of peace and prosperity there depends in part on keeping one from forming."
http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=2066
LOL!
There seems to be some confusion of anarchism and libertarianism. It is a funny video though!
ReplyDeleteTom,
ReplyDeleteI read through Ludwig von Mises's article, and he is actually less of a buffoon than might seem at first glance.
He is not making as much a libertarian argument as is actually saying that a country that is formed in a natural fashion through customary law will be better off than an artificially constructed entity. Somalians should be allowed to construct their own government from the bottom up, and not (with outside influence) from the top down.
With the demonstrated ineffectiveness of sub-saharan African political systems, I am almost tempted to agree with any novel outlook that makes any bit of sense.
Sal, I'd agree with you that a state must be allowed to develop from "the bottom up" but the article we're citing hardly advocates such an approach.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to which of the major factions dividing Somalia you think the author supports as the good ol' homegrown type. Would it be the invading Ethiopian armies? Or the Islamist extremists seeking to force Sharia?
I guess neither, since the only foreign interference she identifies as problematic is that of the UN -- ironically the only organization trying to put infrastructure in place to give control of Somalia back to Somalis.
He might be talking about Puntland and possibly Somaliland. Those guys are actually doing relatively okay, but I don't know the history of how they formed. He might also be talking about completely localized government coalescing in the future. What I am about to say could be an approach with similar moral levels to the Malthusian system, but if Somalia could go through 20 years of chaos to emerge with a successful ground-up government, that might not be too bad an alternative.
ReplyDeleteIf the author (she, btw) is really talking about "completely localized government coalescing in the future" - which she isn't, but I'll ignore that since it's not really relevant to the points we're arguing here - then what's wrong with interference from an outside entity (the UN here) so long as it is intended strictly to aid with self-development and restrict foreign intervention?
ReplyDeleteNo state is a vacuum and a doctrine of complete non-interference is unrealistic in that its application would be limited to theoretical constructs. Socio-political ties will always exist on a historical level and interdependence will always be there to some degree. So this takes us to an even greater question - how do we define a distinct society, or nation? And when is interference in that other society justified, if ever?
Sal, there's a very large overlap in libertarian and anarchist thinking... one you may want to explore a bit further.
ReplyDeleteI understand the tendency for confusion, but fine minutia of difference are quite important. The party answer is probably the best example.
ReplyDeleteHere are some fun explanations of the difference from http://www.chaospark.com/politics/reid12.htm:
What's the difference between libertarians and anarchists?
The traditional answer
Libertarians want severely limited government and anarchists want none.
The humanist answer
Libertarians are nonviolent; some anarchists are violent.
The funny answer
Libertarians are to anarchists as nudists are to naked people.They're just middle class & organized so they appear less crazy.
The Party answer (from Andre Marrou)
An anarchist is an extreme libertarian, like a socialist is an extreme democrat, and a fascist is an extreme republican.
The graphic answer
It's like the difference between a lover and a rapist.They're both in the same place but one uses violence to get there.
The straight answer
Libertarians believe in free markets, private property, and capitalism. Anarchists who believe in these things usually call themselves libertarians.
I agree with the half-crazed nudists assessment.
ReplyDeleteThat's cause you like nudists.
ReplyDeleteSal the problem with these "explanations" is that they are based on political prejudice and a very thin understanding of political history (particularly the history of working class movements and anarchism). Today many in the U.S. do equate anarchists with extremists, assassins and bomb throwers, because that's the way it's used - but this doesn't make it correct. What's worse, it obscures people's understanding of important political developments of the last 100-150 years.
ReplyDeleteHere's a super brief explanation that might further illuminate what I'm talking about:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Ian,
ReplyDeleteI think you are mixing two definitions of libertarianism to defend the video. The man in the video is clearly a member of the American libertarian movement, which does not have the identical definition as the opposite of Authority as per your post.
the dems should use these types of videos as generic tv ads against the republican party
ReplyDelete