It's so nice to find that there are at least a solid couple handfuls of people commenting on one of the Gawker sites that understand the fundamental flaws (underlying absurdity?) of Libertarianism.
Everyone who openly aligns themselves with a political ideology (if only for simplicity sake) take an attitude of intellectual superiority, but Libertarians seem to especially obnoxious.
At least when you're talking about far-right, conservatives (the current face of the GOP?), you can settle on fundamental differences in ideology and walk away, when you have something as all over the place and not exactly distasteful (in theory) you're constantly left saying "that's sounds great, but..." and then you have to just decide that either the person is incapable of critical thought, or intellectually dishonest to the point of lying about what they, themselves, actually think is a good idea.
The part that gets to me the most is basing an ideological concept (I understand it pre-dates her work, but I mean specifically regarding modern Libertarians) on a writer as childish and downright bad as Ayn Rand.
If not the Nineteenth, then libertarians are, at least in America, stuck in the Twentieth Century, much like modern liberals and conservatives. While the latter two tend to spar over Vietnam or WWII scenarios--appeasing, domino theory, dodging the "hippie" label, and what not--even if their representatives weren't alive or old enough to debate when these episodes were actually first played out, libertarians on the other hand play out the Cold War itself, with capitalism equated with freedom and any opponent of capitalism standing in for the evil Soviet Union.
The question of "What is libertarianism?" keeps coming up for me, and I'm glad to see it's come up here. Naturally, true believers will tell you that libertarianism is, alternately, whatever they say it is or whatever the Founding Fathers believed, but it's not so simple. The first answer is obviously absurd, and the second ignores that the Founders had diverse opinions, not all of which mesh with modern post-industrial capitalism (big surprise, right?). Was Jefferson's agrarian republic more libertarian than Hamilton's industrialized, urban centralism? Who is to say? Applying modern political stances to the hundreds-of-years-old past is doomed to failure, if you ask me. We might look for inspiration, but there are no analogues.
So where does libertarianism come from? What is it? Well, my personal libertarianism harks back to 1930s Spain, because I'm a fan of direct ownership and economic rights and, generally, a left anarchist. But "libertarianism" as we use it means something very specific, usually in an American context (they often use "liberal" abroad, I understand, which must confuse folks), that developed out of the Second World War. It has parts of the anti-FDR coalition as well as new heterodox strains of thought that came over from Europe. It is both homegrown and hybrid. It can be ignorant or urbane. It finds support in both anti-authoritarian and establishment thought. Nowhere else will you see folks quote Thoreau and Hamilton in the same breath. It's associated with Heinlein, to its benefit and to his simplification (he had a lot of ideas, though I don't believe he ever rejected the label). Isolationists and peaceniks may alike be found in its ranks, and recently they've become quite a bit more interventionist, with several public figures embracing the formerly-called War on Terror. G8 protesters and Randian evangelists alike. Glenn Beck fans and supporters of single-payer healthcare. Whenever I meet a libertarian, I ask what precisely he or she believes. "Libertarian," personally speaking, tells me nothing about that person's stance.
That libertarians have hardly ever held power, and almost never as libertarians in name, only helps this confusion. I know staunch pro-choice folks who pulled for Ron Paul, not knowing or forgiving his positions on abortion because of his thoughts on other matters. I won't interpret their rationality; most of us prioritize our political goals. I just mention it as one more split that libertarianism can't address, because it is little more than a jumble of associated stances. It means as much as liberalism and conservatism, but as those latter camps at least have histories of governance, one can directly assail them. Taking on libertarianism is like taking on smoke; it does not cohere in the same way as other political "movements." It has no community, no caucus. Its party is not widely held as a mouthpiece, because libertarians are as likely to work through the two-party system or reject it entirely than start up their own.
@Asen: This is exactly why I roll my eyes when someone tells me they're a libertarian. It basically comes down to "I like freedom, and I have certain moral values." I'm glad you are very aware of the lack of political cohesion. Smart libertarians like you make me not reject libertarianism outright, even though most people who claim it are just incredibly selfish in what they will allow and not allow the government to have a say.
It's a free country, so he can say what he wants, and he's responsible for it.
It's a free market, so I'm sure he won't mind when 51% of the population decides not to use his product since he believes that their ability to vote has ruined America.
I know nothing about libertarianism or libertarians, but hear me anyway: Everyone knows they are a single group of stupid, selfish, ugly, single, childless middle-aged men who have childish ideas about economics, government, and everything else.
I always placed hard-core Libertarianism in the same category as hard-core Communism or socialism or any of the varieties of Utopian thought that became so prominent in the late 19th and 20th century. They all claim that as long as everyone follows their ideal it will produce a new and perfect society, then goes into great detail about that society and makes numerous plans and proscriptions about how to bring that society about.
The trouble with all of them is that they all make that same jump, the part about how it will all work out just fine so long as everyone follows the philosophy. I find this kind of naivete almost charming. It's kind of like a little girl's tea party. It's very pleasant, but the moment her little brother gets bored or wants to play GI Joes, it all starts to fall apart. The problem is that one person's Utopia is another person's Dystopia.
It's no wonder that most utopian visions have to take some time out to dwell on how to make sure everybody follows the plan. Whether it's imagining rows of smiling youths accepting everything they're taught about how perfect their society is, or propoganda is bent towards creating the aspirational ideal person who loves that society such as the "New Soviet Man" or the person motivated by enlightened self interest who never makes mistakes based on any of the numerous passions, foibles, or problems that plague real people.
The truth is, we have to live with all the other people who disagree with our version of perfection. Compromises have to be made, though we can take bits from all across the spectrum. No one ends up happy, and that's one of the great wonders of human life. Because that desire to find that perfect world is part of what keeps driving us all forward. "Everybody dies frustrated inside, and that is beautiful", as They Might Be Giants says.
The wacky thing is, I was introduced to the idea of creating the people for your utopia by Masamune Shirow's cyberpunk manga "Appleseed" I know it's all "Ghost in the Shell" these days, but I always thought that was a stronger work. When Deunan realizes that the majority of the people in the perfect city of Olympus are really genetically altered clones made to live in the city, she's stunned, and comes to think of Olympus as a perfectly constructed toy.
@Briareosdx:
Dude, I just wrote a comment that was more like a pamphlet, so I'm in the same camp as far as chattiness.
I'd like to second that the purity thing has come up several times. It's common enough in political discussions, but libertarians always seem particularly affronted by it, or use it as an excuse. "Well, that's not pure libertarianism," and so on. It's like talking to an orthodox Marxist. The conditions are never pure; all revolutions are heterogeneous. Even Lenin understood that. So, given that people are inconsistent and messy, what will work? Nothing that insists on unanimity of vision. Secession might work, but otherwise, you're going to have to work with hybrid systems.
Something I overheard once:
What is a libertarian? A libertarian is someone who lives in a community where he enjoys the protection of police and fire department, drives on public roads, sends his kids to public school and then complains that he has to pay taxes.
Which I thought was interesting.
The term libertarian futurist is a oxymoron. Libertarians don't care a jot about any guiding force for the future or societal collaboration, in fact they're specifically against it. They believe in personal freedom and minimal governing. This doesn't lend itself to any horizon broader than their own life.
Libertarians are suckers who believe corporations are honest and want to sell us a high quality product at a low cost because they are our best friend. In fact, corporations are so great they should run things because they're never corrupt.
Yes, Libertarians are naive fools who somehow think Feudalism was a brilliant idea.
So is this a serious discussion, or just a thread used to shit-talk people with different opinions? Are you college-educated adults, or rejects from 4chan? Keep it clean folks.
As for why libertarianism is an appealing point of view, some people happen to agree with the role of government as laid out by the Constitution, in that it's only real responsibility is to provide citizens protection from foreign invasion, etc etc. These same people take exception at being expected to pay for the poor choices of others, when most of us are a little busy dealing with our own choices. Two sorts of people have a hard time understanding that mindset: those who stand to directly benefit from enhanced government benefits, or those who go through life with deep seated guilt for the good fortunes they've received. To the former, a libertarian says "get a job," and to the latter, they say "what, you've never heard of community service and volunteering?"
On some things, I understand where libertarians are coming from, although I prefer a balance, and believe the state does have a role to play in balancing out the ambitions of the private sector. The problem is, and this has been pointed out throughout history, who or what forces balance out the government's ambitions? The level of public scrutiny has not matched the level of Government control for a long, long time, and to those who have studied the past, or dealt with corrupt regimes first-hand, this is a frightening situation our country currently faces.
So what is appealing about libertarianism? The same thing some find appealing in liberalism: balance. Nothing more, nothing less. They are simply the other side of the scale, the control group who see the glass as half full, where the other sees it as half empty. To mock the person, and to belittle the ideal without logically confronting it with clear and valid points, serves only to weaken the validity of your own points of view. If you are honestly curious about the political changes that took place in the 20's and 30's, and where the opposition to a nanny state came from, I recommend reading Amity Shlaes "The Forgotten Man."
@Cash907Censored: "The problem is, and this has been pointed out throughout history,who or what forces balance out the government's ambitions?"
Well in a democratic system, it's suppose to be the people being represented by that sytsem. Ideally an educated people. Now we see how well that is currently working out. My question to the libertarian would be, exactly how do they think their version of the system would work any better when it's painfully obvious that the problem isn't with governmental systems but with the people who run them.
True liberty can only be achieved with the barrel of a gun, the same gun that is at the hart of it's oppression to begin with.
To keep this discussion in the spirit of io9, read God Emperor of Dune by Frank Herbert for an insightful and entertaining discussion on such things. :D
libertarianism is a cousin of anarchism -- the difference is just how much state government each expects will be necessary in this new utopia.
i know a bunch of libertarians, and some of them strike me as reasonable, and some of them are unreasonable along the axis of "fuck you, i've got mine"
there is a country where one can live free from the meddling influence of an oppresive government. it's somalia. i look forward to somalia's ascendence as a shining beacon of libertopia.
@nworobes: It's something about not having a mean ol' State that takes taxes and is always telling people what they can't do. People will be free to do whatever they want, and of course never take advantage of anyone else. See? Foolproof.
@dlomax: I don't pretend to be an economist, but I suspect they don't understand economics, either. I have to question the apparent Libertarian assumption that in a stateless society no one could accumulate and abuse an excess of economic power (or any kind of power, for that matter).
@Grey_Area: I'm sure there must be something else to it but yeah, the only things I hear from friends are "I don't have kids so I shouldn't have to pay taxes to educate any; I don't care if docs taking care of me forty years from now can read" and "The Tragedy of the Commons will *never* occur if people are left to their own devices."
@redqueenmeg: That is the problem I encounter. The only libertarians I happen to know are around my age (21), and selfish pricks. They don't seem to have put much more thought into their position beyond "So I don't have to pay taxes and get to keep my money? OK, that's the one for me." or "So drug use is legal? OK, that's the one for me."
Nonetheless, I'd like to give it a fair shot, and hear what a more mature adult can say to justify libertarianism as a legitimate position.
@don_mynack: I would appreciate it if you could try to answer my sincere request, and not just insult the viewpoints of others before justifying your own.
Yes, some of those responding to my comment will just go ahead and take shots at libertarianism, but at the very least, I am genuinely interested in listening to what libertarians have to say, and I have no intentions of just dismissing them.
@don_mynack: And the right is for people who understand human nature just well enough to want to profit by it.
No, that's not it. How about "the leadership of the right understands human nature just well enough to profit by it and the rest of them get profited by."
No, still not right. Maybe I suck at aphorisms. But I still think I'm right about those libertarians. The serious ones I've met are smart in an engineering sense, but really don't get what would result from a stateless, um ... state?
@nworobes: The problem with trying to give a serious answer is that you asked for it to be brief. As dismissive as I am about the poor account of basic human nature in libertarian philosophy, I must acknowledge that it does come in many flavours. The best I can do is to suggest that they're interested in government that does as little as possible to regulate anything that anyone could define as a personal freedom, and believe that in such a system, people would behave well enough, and that volunteers would step in to organize whatever needed to be organized. I think. Am I wrong? Anyone? Anyone?
@nworobes: How about this: "You take care of yourself, don't hurt anybody else and I'll do the same."
I think they believe in a sort of enlightened self interest. If everybody is honest and takes care of themselves, everything will be fine. Nobody tries to take unfair advantage and if they do, the system ostracizes them and lets them fend for themselves, without a societies support. Doesn't work in practice for obvious reasons.
The quote above seems like same old same old. Pining for better, simpler times that were neither better nor simpler.
@nworobes: As a non-registered person with a generally libertarian stance, I'm sort of apalled by how little some of the other comments understand libertarianism. It's not really about capitalism, although that follows hand-in-hand, or about some naive idealism.
For most libertarians, it's about being left alone by the government. A good example: many states are implementing mandatory seatbelt laws. Libertarians would say that we don't need our government to act like our mothers. In a free society, as the US supposedly is, your freedom goes until it infringes on the freedom of someone else. I won't pretend that there's no grey area in most cases.
Most libertarians are quite comfortable living with taxes... just not with how much tax money is taken from them, just to be squandered.
Thoreau said "That government is best which governs least."
@dometone: The old Neo-Confucianists would agree with that Thoreau quote. The very ugly results that would occur from the withdraw of the State's protection makes me cringe. "Oh, but the weak get what they deserve.", seems to be the Libertarian view.
@nworobes: Libertarians don't approve of the government attempting to legislate morality, and I think that is what makes it so appealing to so many people. It's an opinion I happen to agree with, and, as we all know, both of the two parties are interested in selling their versions of morality to us.
The trouble with libertarianism, and the reason I don't subscribe to it myself, is its radical economic fundamentalism. The fact is that socialism and capitalism are not the opposites we're told to believe they are. They're just different endpoints on a continuum, one with an emphasis on the individual, the other with an emphasis on society. The fundamental mistake of libertarians is to assume that capitalism is inherently decentralized, but a quick look at the hierarchical structure of any modern corporation can bring to mind, at least to me, the same inherent structure as the Soviet Union or a medieval city-state.
@Grey_Area: Is the state really protecting you, or anyone? Take a minute to think about the last time your government really did something for you... especially at any level of government higher than provincial.
I am, of course, excluding that which falls under the heading of "national security", although the public benefit of those matters is dubious as well.
I'm not really sure who you mean by "the weak" or in what respect they'd be getting comeuppance. I guess I'd need an example. In terms of economics, Ayn-Rand-style barrier-free markets have proved their worthlessness in a world of enlessly inventive people. Most libertarians of my acquaintance are very moderate, and keen on corporate accountability.
More isn't always better, but if self-selected use of technology to push back the biological goal posts is any criteria
"Self-selected" is a term that means nothing. There's no such thing as "self-selected". You "select" something. You're already a self. It's just "selected".
I really hate thinkers who make up nonsensical terms.
08/10/09
Everyone who openly aligns themselves with a political ideology (if only for simplicity sake) take an attitude of intellectual superiority, but Libertarians seem to especially obnoxious.
At least when you're talking about far-right, conservatives (the current face of the GOP?), you can settle on fundamental differences in ideology and walk away, when you have something as all over the place and not exactly distasteful (in theory) you're constantly left saying "that's sounds great, but..." and then you have to just decide that either the person is incapable of critical thought, or intellectually dishonest to the point of lying about what they, themselves, actually think is a good idea.
The part that gets to me the most is basing an ideological concept (I understand it pre-dates her work, but I mean specifically regarding modern Libertarians) on a writer as childish and downright bad as Ayn Rand.
08/10/09
The question of "What is libertarianism?" keeps coming up for me, and I'm glad to see it's come up here. Naturally, true believers will tell you that libertarianism is, alternately, whatever they say it is or whatever the Founding Fathers believed, but it's not so simple. The first answer is obviously absurd, and the second ignores that the Founders had diverse opinions, not all of which mesh with modern post-industrial capitalism (big surprise, right?). Was Jefferson's agrarian republic more libertarian than Hamilton's industrialized, urban centralism? Who is to say? Applying modern political stances to the hundreds-of-years-old past is doomed to failure, if you ask me. We might look for inspiration, but there are no analogues.
So where does libertarianism come from? What is it? Well, my personal libertarianism harks back to 1930s Spain, because I'm a fan of direct ownership and economic rights and, generally, a left anarchist. But "libertarianism" as we use it means something very specific, usually in an American context (they often use "liberal" abroad, I understand, which must confuse folks), that developed out of the Second World War. It has parts of the anti-FDR coalition as well as new heterodox strains of thought that came over from Europe. It is both homegrown and hybrid. It can be ignorant or urbane. It finds support in both anti-authoritarian and establishment thought. Nowhere else will you see folks quote Thoreau and Hamilton in the same breath. It's associated with Heinlein, to its benefit and to his simplification (he had a lot of ideas, though I don't believe he ever rejected the label). Isolationists and peaceniks may alike be found in its ranks, and recently they've become quite a bit more interventionist, with several public figures embracing the formerly-called War on Terror. G8 protesters and Randian evangelists alike. Glenn Beck fans and supporters of single-payer healthcare. Whenever I meet a libertarian, I ask what precisely he or she believes. "Libertarian," personally speaking, tells me nothing about that person's stance.
That libertarians have hardly ever held power, and almost never as libertarians in name, only helps this confusion. I know staunch pro-choice folks who pulled for Ron Paul, not knowing or forgiving his positions on abortion because of his thoughts on other matters. I won't interpret their rationality; most of us prioritize our political goals. I just mention it as one more split that libertarianism can't address, because it is little more than a jumble of associated stances. It means as much as liberalism and conservatism, but as those latter camps at least have histories of governance, one can directly assail them. Taking on libertarianism is like taking on smoke; it does not cohere in the same way as other political "movements." It has no community, no caucus. Its party is not widely held as a mouthpiece, because libertarians are as likely to work through the two-party system or reject it entirely than start up their own.
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/09/09
It's a free market, so I'm sure he won't mind when 51% of the population decides not to use his product since he believes that their ability to vote has ruined America.
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/10/09
08/09/09
The trouble with all of them is that they all make that same jump, the part about how it will all work out just fine so long as everyone follows the philosophy. I find this kind of naivete almost charming. It's kind of like a little girl's tea party. It's very pleasant, but the moment her little brother gets bored or wants to play GI Joes, it all starts to fall apart. The problem is that one person's Utopia is another person's Dystopia.
It's no wonder that most utopian visions have to take some time out to dwell on how to make sure everybody follows the plan. Whether it's imagining rows of smiling youths accepting everything they're taught about how perfect their society is, or propoganda is bent towards creating the aspirational ideal person who loves that society such as the "New Soviet Man" or the person motivated by enlightened self interest who never makes mistakes based on any of the numerous passions, foibles, or problems that plague real people.
The truth is, we have to live with all the other people who disagree with our version of perfection. Compromises have to be made, though we can take bits from all across the spectrum. No one ends up happy, and that's one of the great wonders of human life. Because that desire to find that perfect world is part of what keeps driving us all forward. "Everybody dies frustrated inside, and that is beautiful", as They Might Be Giants says.
The wacky thing is, I was introduced to the idea of creating the people for your utopia by Masamune Shirow's cyberpunk manga "Appleseed" I know it's all "Ghost in the Shell" these days, but I always thought that was a stronger work. When Deunan realizes that the majority of the people in the perfect city of Olympus are really genetically altered clones made to live in the city, she's stunned, and comes to think of Olympus as a perfectly constructed toy.
08/10/09
Dude, I just wrote a comment that was more like a pamphlet, so I'm in the same camp as far as chattiness.
I'd like to second that the purity thing has come up several times. It's common enough in political discussions, but libertarians always seem particularly affronted by it, or use it as an excuse. "Well, that's not pure libertarianism," and so on. It's like talking to an orthodox Marxist. The conditions are never pure; all revolutions are heterogeneous. Even Lenin understood that. So, given that people are inconsistent and messy, what will work? Nothing that insists on unanimity of vision. Secession might work, but otherwise, you're going to have to work with hybrid systems.
08/09/09
What is a libertarian? A libertarian is someone who lives in a community where he enjoys the protection of police and fire department, drives on public roads, sends his kids to public school and then complains that he has to pay taxes.
Which I thought was interesting.
08/09/09
08/09/09
Yes, Libertarians are naive fools who somehow think Feudalism was a brilliant idea.
08/09/09
As for why libertarianism is an appealing point of view, some people happen to agree with the role of government as laid out by the Constitution, in that it's only real responsibility is to provide citizens protection from foreign invasion, etc etc. These same people take exception at being expected to pay for the poor choices of others, when most of us are a little busy dealing with our own choices. Two sorts of people have a hard time understanding that mindset: those who stand to directly benefit from enhanced government benefits, or those who go through life with deep seated guilt for the good fortunes they've received. To the former, a libertarian says "get a job," and to the latter, they say "what, you've never heard of community service and volunteering?"
On some things, I understand where libertarians are coming from, although I prefer a balance, and believe the state does have a role to play in balancing out the ambitions of the private sector. The problem is, and this has been pointed out throughout history, who or what forces balance out the government's ambitions? The level of public scrutiny has not matched the level of Government control for a long, long time, and to those who have studied the past, or dealt with corrupt regimes first-hand, this is a frightening situation our country currently faces.
So what is appealing about libertarianism? The same thing some find appealing in liberalism: balance. Nothing more, nothing less. They are simply the other side of the scale, the control group who see the glass as half full, where the other sees it as half empty. To mock the person, and to belittle the ideal without logically confronting it with clear and valid points, serves only to weaken the validity of your own points of view. If you are honestly curious about the political changes that took place in the 20's and 30's, and where the opposition to a nanny state came from, I recommend reading Amity Shlaes "The Forgotten Man."
08/09/09
Well in a democratic system, it's suppose to be the people being represented by that sytsem. Ideally an educated people. Now we see how well that is currently working out. My question to the libertarian would be, exactly how do they think their version of the system would work any better when it's painfully obvious that the problem isn't with governmental systems but with the people who run them.
True liberty can only be achieved with the barrel of a gun, the same gun that is at the hart of it's oppression to begin with.
To keep this discussion in the spirit of io9, read God Emperor of Dune by Frank Herbert for an insightful and entertaining discussion on such things. :D
08/09/09
i know a bunch of libertarians, and some of them strike me as reasonable, and some of them are unreasonable along the axis of "fuck you, i've got mine"
there is a country where one can live free from the meddling influence of an oppresive government. it's somalia. i look forward to somalia's ascendence as a shining beacon of libertopia.
08/09/09
Libertarians are the folks who want to liberate themselves from government, but still want to be YOUR boss.
08/09/09
Guy#1 "What is a libertarian exactly?"
Guy#2 "A libertarian is an anarchist with a hard-on for capitalism."
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/09/09
Nonetheless, I'd like to give it a fair shot, and hear what a more mature adult can say to justify libertarianism as a legitimate position.
08/09/09
Yes, some of those responding to my comment will just go ahead and take shots at libertarianism, but at the very least, I am genuinely interested in listening to what libertarians have to say, and I have no intentions of just dismissing them.
08/09/09
No, that's not it. How about "the leadership of the right understands human nature just well enough to profit by it and the rest of them get profited by."
No, still not right. Maybe I suck at aphorisms. But I still think I'm right about those libertarians. The serious ones I've met are smart in an engineering sense, but really don't get what would result from a stateless, um ... state?
08/09/09
08/09/09
I think they believe in a sort of enlightened self interest. If everybody is honest and takes care of themselves, everything will be fine. Nobody tries to take unfair advantage and if they do, the system ostracizes them and lets them fend for themselves, without a societies support. Doesn't work in practice for obvious reasons.
The quote above seems like same old same old. Pining for better, simpler times that were neither better nor simpler.
08/09/09
For most libertarians, it's about being left alone by the government. A good example: many states are implementing mandatory seatbelt laws. Libertarians would say that we don't need our government to act like our mothers. In a free society, as the US supposedly is, your freedom goes until it infringes on the freedom of someone else. I won't pretend that there's no grey area in most cases.
Most libertarians are quite comfortable living with taxes... just not with how much tax money is taken from them, just to be squandered.
Thoreau said "That government is best which governs least."
08/09/09
08/09/09
The trouble with libertarianism, and the reason I don't subscribe to it myself, is its radical economic fundamentalism. The fact is that socialism and capitalism are not the opposites we're told to believe they are. They're just different endpoints on a continuum, one with an emphasis on the individual, the other with an emphasis on society. The fundamental mistake of libertarians is to assume that capitalism is inherently decentralized, but a quick look at the hierarchical structure of any modern corporation can bring to mind, at least to me, the same inherent structure as the Soviet Union or a medieval city-state.
08/15/09
I am, of course, excluding that which falls under the heading of "national security", although the public benefit of those matters is dubious as well.
I'm not really sure who you mean by "the weak" or in what respect they'd be getting comeuppance. I guess I'd need an example. In terms of economics, Ayn-Rand-style barrier-free markets have proved their worthlessness in a world of enlessly inventive people. Most libertarians of my acquaintance are very moderate, and keen on corporate accountability.
08/09/09
08/09/09
03/29/09
"Self-selected" is a term that means nothing. There's no such thing as "self-selected". You "select" something. You're already a self. It's just "selected".
I really hate thinkers who make up nonsensical terms.