Also, please take note: it is impossible to be a libertarian and against ableism.
IMPOSSIBLE. Seeing that most of the attacks against people with disabilities are waged via AUSTERITY MEASURES.
No, it is not impossible to be a libertarian and also be against ableism. My life is the proof of that, and I find the assertion of something which contradicts my reality to be offensive. Libertarianism is about maximising liberty to all individuals, not about allowing unlimited license for oppression of others. If that is what you think, then you need to learn more about libertarianism.
It is possible to harmonize libertarian philosophy with social justice in theory. However, it is impossible in practice because there is zero traction in that direction within libertarianism as an actual political movement in the United States. This is why I am an ex-libertarian.
Now that I agree with, but that isn’t going to stop me from fighting for a better conception of libertarianism. I believe that the problem lies mainly with a incorrect conception of the moral basis for private property ownership rights, which incidentally, is not limited to libertarianism, only exacerbated by it.
By and large, most liberals understand that libertarians are totally cool with “Life” and “Liberty”, but it’s the “Property” part that fucks everything up. Libertarianism in the US as a movement has come to embrace, improperly in my opinion, the supremacy of private property rights over the mandate to maximise liberty to all people.
This has led to a libertarian conception of governmental legitimacy and function that is really more properly described as anarchism or at the very least, extreme minarchism. This is also exacerbated by the irrational, Randian perspective of the Capitalistic profit motive and nonsensical belief in the existence of an inherent tendency toward freedom in market economies, when in fact it is the exact reverse of that which is evident. What has supplanted libertarianism is something which is more accurately described as “Randian anarcho-capitalism”.
Markets inevitably tend toward injustice. To deny this fact is to deny reality, pure and simple. Markets must be regulated in order to sustain the maximum amount of Liberty possible within any given market system. The balance of power between Supply and Demand can never be equal without Perfect Information, a state which is impossible to create.
Any conception of libertarianism as a philosophy *must* include a realistic conception of Human Nature, of the purpose of Civilisation, and of Natural Rights, or it cannot be truly called “libertarian”.
Here’s the problem: your conception of libertarianism is diametrically opposed to pretty much the entire libertarian political movement and also conflicts with a substantial portion of generally-accepted libertarian ideology. I would argue that it is entirely counterproductive for you to identify as a libertarian, because you basically have to start every single discussion by explaining your own massively divergent version of libertarianism.
Except that that isn’t actually true. Even a cursory reading of the Wikipedia entry on Libertarianism will agree with this statement. There is a huge range of ideas that fall underneath the libertarian designation. Please, I ask you to familiarise yourself with some of them. My version of libertarianism is not at all “massively divergent”. It only disagrees with the version of libertarianism which has been popularised recently.
- sd60macintosh2748 reblogged this from ramblingtabis
- chelseamb-artist likes this
- plures reblogged this from daisy-bellis
- faketransgirl reblogged this from daisy-bellis
- disabledbyculture likes this
- gcvsa reblogged this from freedominwickedness and added:
- freedominwickedness reblogged this from gcvsa and added:
- daisy-bellis reblogged this from widdershinsgirl and added:
- raspberryfeministbarbie likes this
- tal9000 reblogged this from gcvsa and added:
- widdershinsgirl reblogged this from gcvsa and added:
- pickledhappiness likes this
- autiecommie posted this