RANT: Questioning the purity of my little L libertarianism?

*** begin quote ***

On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:12 AM, LUDDITE wrote:

I almost submitted on your blog, but decided this should be a ‘personal’ post!   I found your letter quite interesting given your Libertarian label.  Isn’t this a little hypocritical?  Maybe it is hitting ‘too close to home’?  Being a FOWG like me?  lol

*** end quote ***

Well, exxxxcuuuuse me. :-)

Think my “libertarianism” is not “pure” enough? That’s why libertarians rip each other up. Over who is the “pure-est” in the land. Very counter productive to success.

(You could have made it a public post. I take criticism well. I think.)

Let me explain my thinking on EEO and corporations. Maybe you can show me the error of my ways?

When a thief steals your wealth, you have the right to self-defense. Part of self-defense is working the system to get back what was unjustly taken. Think Robin Hood stealing back the King’s unjust taxes. Fighting against injustice is always the correct thing to do.

Corporations are a creations of the Gooferment. So, any diktats leveled on their subordinate entities are of no concern. In my little L libertarian world, there should be no “limited liability companies”. Just people doing business as. You might have “groups” operating under a “trade name” but liability would be unlimited but shared under a contractual arrangement. Thus a “BP” would be responsible for cleanup and damages.

(Sigh!)

But we are NOT in my little L libertarian world.

If the thief has ways of recovering some of your wealth, then, as a principle of common law, I must mitigate my loss.

Some libertarians believe that “true libertarians” should be “pure” and complete forego any voluntary interaction with the Gooferment. These are the anarcho capitalist faction.

Some libertarians believe that “true libertarians” should be confrontational and get in the Gooferment’s grill at every opportunity. These are the social action / peaceful civil disobedience faction. (Think like Gandhi. Of course, it is never moral to initiate force or violence. It’s always moral to defend yourself. In proportion. Can’t kill a politicians and bureaucrats because they rob you of a few dollars. But, in Ruby Ridge, Waco, or Kelo, you defend vigorously.)

Some libertarians believe that “true libertarians” should pick their battles. Steal anything you can back if you can. Pay when you have to. So, each time an opportunity to “interact” with the Gooferment appears, you decide: comply, ignore , or “snipe”. One motivation is to recover lost wealth or liberty. One is to demonstrate the Gooferment’s oppression. One is to gum up the works (i.e., pay tickets in pennies; use their system against them to demonstrate to them or others that they are tyrants).

My EEO post was that the Gooferment permits another part of itself (i.e., corporations) to injure people while the Gooferment is claiming to champion the people and protect them from age discrimination. It circles back on itself. If you look at “corporations” as part of the Gooferment, then the illusion really dissolves.

Does that make sense? Strip away the costumes & labels, and it all seems much clearer.

imho,
fjohn

p.p.s., For example, that’s why like the “University of Maryland” is really the Gooferment in disguise. And, they should not be allowed to fool “We, The People” with different costumes and labels. It’s just all just Gooferment. Big! Overpowering! And, ubiquitous. They call themselves the UoM but it’s just an extension of Big Government. When you total up, you have to figure: politicians and bureaucrats added to all the people who are the “feeders at the trough” of Big G!

# # # # #

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,049 other followers

%d bloggers like this: