Quote:
Originally Posted by MVW
Thanks. I have spent a great deal of time looking into libertarianism and classical liberalism and see some familiar stuff in there. I am definitely pro-capitalism. I cant think of any breakthrough in the history of civilization , whether it be physics, the wheel or the computer, that has come about in any other way than thro individuals/capitalism. Nor do I know of any other system that offers as much freedom as it does. So, therefore, I doubt you could find anyone more anti-socialist then me. It has no logic to it that I can see.
|
On the other hand it has seen the largest increase in the size of states in history and seems to have not greatly improved the average person's autonomy except for being able to buy flashy rubbish like flat screen TV. I myself sit rather in the middle if not to the libertarian and decentralist centre-left. I don't like forced collectivism certainly but I want economic decentralism as well as political and I want the average person to have more autonomy and freedom which means greater access to capital, so laissez capitalism based on a lockean idea of property doesn't appeal to me either. The other ideologies which can be called libertarian and even the socialist ones are worth knowing about. There are no more libertarian people in the world than social anarchists and people like Peter Kropotkin, Murray Bookchin, Emma Goldman, Oscar Wilde etc etc
Quote:
From all my searching I have come to hold Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, Hayak and Ayn Rand and their teachings , for want of a better word, in high esteem.
Labels are so often misunderstood, so I prefer to refrain from using them if I can, but if you are familiar with those 4 names , as you probably are, you'll have a good idea of my views on philosophy, politics and economics.
|
Rand is interesting although I lack quite the depth of knowledge of her work I'd like however. Friedman I find a bit vulgar, he is nowhere near radical enough in his libertarianism and decentralism in my view and went in a little too much for what Kevin Carson calls vulgar libertarianism ie the defence of corporate interests under a veil of free market rhetoric. Alot of Hayek's thought is excellent, he has a much firmer theoretical base in his ideas on knowledge than do many American style libertarians and their methodological individualism and that is because the Burkean conservative influence in his thought is obvious and much sounder than theories based on isolated, economically "rational" individuals wo form society simply through rationalistic attempts at utility maximisation. And Paul I'm not too up on but he seems just a politician and not a great thinker to me.