It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Who protects the majority when the minority has no voice?
How can a man that claims to support the ideals of the founding fathers have supporters that want to suppress democracy?
It's easy; as Chomsky states, the real ideals of Libertarianism, as with democracy, can be defined as protect with the interest of individuals, within a group. Remove the group, in this case, government, or society, and you remove these protections.
Who protects the majority when the minority has no voice?
How can a man that claims to support the ideals of the founding fathers have supporters that want to suppress democracy?
It's easy; as Chomsky states, the real ideals of Libertarianism, as with democracy, can be defined as protect with the interest of individuals, within a group. Remove the group, in this case, government, or society, and you remove these protections.
The US right has extrapolated that because the core unit of society is an individual, the core purpose of society is to somehow destroy itself FOR individuals. But without society, without democracy, without the group protecting it's constituent parts, there is no Libertarianism.
This is why Chomsky says that US Libertarianism is an advocate for extreme tyranny. US Libertarians believe in the individual OVER the group. They also believe in the right of business to act as an individual. In other words they believe in the right of the wealthy elites to behave as they desire, with no checks imposed by society, for it's own protection. The idea of laissez faire capitalists choosing to be "self-destructive" to protect an "other" person is laughable and delusional.
This is THE reason I have withdrawn my support from Paul.
I agree completely with your opinion here in this thread. Yes, many ears here will be deaf, but there are many who recognize the failure of a government that refuses to protect the rights of ALL the people, not just the majority group.
After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference — the fundamental one — between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government. Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274
B.3 Why are anarchists against private property?
Private property is one of the three things all anarchists oppose, along side hierarchical authority and the state. Today, the dominant system of private property is capitalist in nature and, as such, anarchists tend to concentrate on this system and its property rights regime. We will be reflecting this here but do not, because of this, assume that anarchists consider other forms of private property regime (such as, say, feudalism) as acceptable. This is not the case -- anarchists are against every form of property rights regime which results in the many working for the few.
Anarchist opposition to private property rests on two, related, arguments. These were summed up by Proudhon's maxims (from What is Property? that "property is theft" and "property is despotism." In his words, "Property . . . violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism. . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery." [Proudhon, What is Property, p. 251] Anarchists, therefore, oppose private property (i.e. capitalism) because it is a source of coercive, hierarchical authority as well as exploitation and, consequently, elite privilege and inequality. It is based on and produces inequality, in terms of both wealth and power.
Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible.
Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists.
Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by sirjunlegun
Another person twisting what Chomsky says to try and distance Paul.
Chomsky is very deliberately discussing the US Libertarian party and it's views. Paul is the face of this party and shares the same views as are discussed by Chomsky.
There's no accidental way to miss his point. One has tonassume you're internationally muddying the waters to defend Paul's belief in tyranny, not state run tyranny, but the tryanny of the wealthy corporate elite.
Libertarianism is a wealthy person’s dream with no regulations or taxes and no concern for anyone but themselves. The wealthy have financial security to pay for private schools, private security, private fire departments, private roads, and private airports and for them, go it on your own works well; especially when their corporations avoid regulations, consumer protection laws, and taxes. However, for everyone else, Libertarianism means a return to frontier America where each family provides all the services the government provides today. There are few Americans who can afford to individually pay for services their tax dollars provide as part of being an American citizen, and yet it is astonishing the number of supporters Ron Paul has amassed over the years.
Ron Paul’s idea of returning power to states means that cash-strapped states and communities that cannot fund basic necessities such as fire protection will have no option but to allow homes to burn to the ground unless individuals band together and pay, by subscription, for a fire truck and fire fighters.
Two weeks ago in Tennessee, a couple watched their home burn to the ground as firefighters stood by and watched because the couple did not pay an annual subscription fee. The local mayor defended fire fighters and said if they responded to non-subscribers, no-one would have an incentive to pay their fee. It is the second time in a year that South Fulton policy allowed first responders to watch, with equipment in hand, as a home burned to the ground. In Ron Paul’s Libertarian vision for America, homes burning to the ground and vicious rapes would be spectator events for first responders if residents could not afford to buy a subscription for law enforcement or fire protection.
Republicans could not care less about whether or not a home burns down or gays are executed by stoning. Their main impetus is eliminating regulations that prevent corporations from unfair business practices and ending taxation for the wealthy. Ron Paul’s small government has identical goals as Republicans and except for his idea of greatly reducing defense spending and foreign aid, he will garner support from many main-stream Republican voters; especially the racists and homophobes in the extremist Christian conservative segment of the population.
Applied economically, it amounts to denying people a living wage purely by dint of the fact that the industrialists were savvy or lucky enough to make their money. It’s all dressed up in portentous language about personal liberty and the rights of the individual, but in practice, libertarian economics is mostly about giving rich men the freedom to get richer without any government to regulate them into giving rights, protections or dignity to their employees.
...
The GOP endorses libertarian economic principles whether it admits to it or not, and it dominates the whole discourse. So while Paul is labelled a kook by the establishment, it’s only really because he’s honest about what he wants.
The real danger from Paul, though, is his religion. God was never a part of (Ayn) Rand’s blueprint. She rejected it, most likely because it’s easier to justify madcap selfishness if you don’t have a cosmic chaperone breathing down your neck. But her vision has been mingled thoroughly into the American political bloodstream, whose other great pathogen is incessant, militaristic God-bothering. Paul represents one outcome of this miscegenation – an objectivist theocrat, welding two of America’s ugliest tendencies under one oxymoronic umbrella.
So while he hullabaloos libertarian principals like ‘States’ Rights’ – taking as many governing decisions from the Federal Government as possible – when challenged about his stance on abortion, it boils down to allowing the more religious southern states the legal right to do what they want: banning it entirely, alongside contraception for good measure.