Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
Another excellent post, Laurel! It shows both the wisdom and the heartless extremism of libertarianism.
I don't have to time to address each point, but I'll say this:
1) It's most unfortunate that the government is owned by the corporations. So asking them to look out for "us" by keeping a watchful eye on "them" is foolhardy. Getting corporate money out of government, as well as corporate "personhood" abolished are two first steps. But it goes beyond that. They still have vast PR power and most people are beholden to them for their livelihoods. As we've seen recently, people will do anything including giving them more money, in the
hope that they will create more jobs with no guarantee. However creating jobs is not their "job"! Their job is to create money!
So yes, presently, we can't rely on the government at the moment.
2) Your comment about shows the idealistic purity of Libertarianism and why it must be tempered. Part of the human experience is that we have the power to rise above simple natural selection. That's where
compassion comes in. There are places where rugged individualism is appropriate and places where it's not. Consciously allowing people to die because of their stupidity (including not being fully versed on which unpronounceable chemicals will kill you faster than others) goes too far.
I'm going to have to limit my time in this discussion. I hope others will join in with a range of POVs.
Clearly Libertarianism is enjoying a rise in popularity. I trust the Paul family will continue to stick close to the party line (Wait, has Rand stayed?). I'll be curious to see if the fellow Tea Party-ers tow it as well. It's worthy to be considered (and they will show how ideologically bankrupt the Republicans are) but it will ultimately fail to carry the day, or be a truly viable system, because
compassion is essential,
greed is heartless, and on a fundamental level
we are one, and that needs to be reflected in our government.