|
Libertarianism and Socialism
|
By Punkerslut
[Hits: 21254]
|
|
Libertarianism and Socialism
By Punkerslut
Among the Libertarian circles, Socialism and Communism arefrequently regarded as the greatest evil -- that is, to say, thegreatest opposition to liberty, and anything to oppose freedommust considered an evil. Essentially, Libertarianism is a basisfor obtaining an opinion on social issues: those things whichencroach upon personal liberty are to be opposed. TheLibertarian thought represents a great deal of progressiveideals, as well as conservative ideals. Simply put,Libertarianism does not place emphasis on liberal versusconservative, or new versus old. Rather, it is based on the oneidea of liberty, hence the title. For gay rights, Libertarianismis supportive of it, since it promotes a person's right to theirown private activity. For Censorship, it is opposed, sincedemotes a person's right to their individual liberty. In theseways, Libertarianism is similar to that of progressive ideals.As far as Free Trade and Capitalism go, Libertarianism issupportive, again, based on the fact that just as a person oughtto have social and political liberty, they must also haveeconomic liberty, and right to sell and purchase withouthindrance. In this way, Libertarianism is closer to conservativerather than liberal values. However, as I stated earlier,Libertarianism is not based on promoting or demoting idealsbased on whether they are new or old, liberal or conservative,radical or archaic. Libertarianism is based solely on the ideaof opposing laws and regulations which interfere with personalliberty.
Yet, for this statement to have any meaningful context, onemust understand another question: what is personal liberty? If Iwere to say that Libertarianism is based on promoting individualliberty, I would be withholding the entire story. There arecertain liberties which Libertarianism specifically restrict.The so-called personal rights are promoted, where a person isnot allowed to steal or to kill another. This is the greatcontradiction of Libertarianism: a man may do whatever hepleases, so long as he does not infringe upon the rights ofanother -- these rights often defined in a variety of ways, butalways by the Libertarian thinker himself. They great failure ofthese thinkers is simple: they have not been able tointrinsically denote the difference between "the right toprotection from theft" and "the right to protection fromeconomic exploitation," or "the right to protection from beingoffended by another's sexual preference." A person may argue,for instance, that to walk nude in public will offend them, andcause them harm, just as much as someone stealing theirproperty. Yet a Libertarian thinker would respond that thenudist has his rights while the thief does not. The problem isthat there is no argument to promote one right and to debaseanother. It is just assumed that the "natural rights" areopposed to theft and murder. Essentially, the problem of itsideology is this: it fails to make the distinction of the rightof not being offended to the right of life -- thatLibertarianism will promote liberty when it's to go nude, butnot when it is to steal. There may be some inane, erroneous workwhich attempts to justify "natural rights" of life and property,but I've yet to find anything substantial to defend these rightsover any others.
When growing up, and developing my initial theories of justiceand fairness, I could typically be classified as a Libertarianin the classical sense: I believed that a person's individualliberty ought to be respected. At this time, I did notunderstand the whole nature of rights -- I did not understandthat while I promoted the right to nudity, I was demoting theright to theft, and that there was no intrinsic way to justifyone without justifying the other. By justifying one or theother, I meant justifying them on the basis of Libertarianism,which is "to promote liberty." I believed in the freedom ofopinion, in the right of a person to do as they wished, withoutinterference to others. The basic conception of liberty that Ihad was that a man can do as he wishes, as long as he does notimpact on the liberty of others. Of course, this left a greatdeal of questions unanswered. I believed in person andindividual liberty. Anything to impose upon this, whether itstemmed from religious or moral bias, ought to be disallowed. Ifa man wanted to dress up like a woman, wearing a dress with animage of a man burning an American flag, while walking down thestreet advertising free sexual acts -- if a man wanted to dothis, it is his right to do this, just as it is a man's right towalk down the street, dressed normally, keeping completely quietand to himself.
But then, I began to investigate the matter of rights muchmore. Libertarians, like many Capitalists, believe that AnimalRights Activists are opposed to Free Enterprise, in that theywant to make it illegal to purchase or kill animals. The faultwith this understanding of rights is that it applies only tohumans. A person would be even more Libertarian if they thoughtit should be made legal to kill human beings and sell their bodyparts as food and decoration. Those who had a Libertarianmindset in the 1800's, they would believe that such rights areexcluded to women. To promote a woman's right to autonomy, theymay argue, would be "to destroy a man's right to property, inhis partner." In the 1700's, those who argued for the abolitionof slaves would be opposed by the Libertarians. To promote anyman's right to autonomy, they may argue, would be "to destroythe slaver's right to slavery in his subjects." A modernLibertarian may argue against these comparisons, "But today werecognize the rights of all men and women!" That may be so.Regardless, the point remains: what a Libertarian understands"the right to property" to mean is apt to change with thechanging social values.
Thus, we come to Socialism, or Communism, where a person'seconomic rights are curtailed by legislation. I confess, it isan infringement of liberty -- but of what liberty? Of theliberty to provide men with only one option: of sacrificingeight hours of their days so that they can live on the brink ofpoverty while their children starve on the streets as beggars.The Communist is not blind. He knows quite clearly what theCapitalist system is: exploitation by coercion. The Capitalistwill argue, "But the worker has but a thousand employers he canseek out! He is free and independent!" Whatever guise orillusion you put over the same system, the odor of contradictionand misery are not snuffed out. Yes, the worker can quit hisjob, but he must forever be tied to a job, offering his laborpower in exchange for subsistence. To say that the worker isfree to quit his job is synonymous with "the worker is free tostarve, if he is unhappy with the circumstances." The freedom tostarve -- that is what Capitalism offers, and that is theliberty that Communism wishes to ameliorate. Instead of workersemployed in creating wealth for their masters, the system ofmasters will be completely overthrown, and the workers will workfor themselves. The wealth of their labor will go directly tothemselves, and not to some idle king, whose right to propertyhas given him a right to exploitation.
I am a Communist, but I still believe in a person's individualrights. There was once a time when liberty involved the right toenslave another, be they man or woman. Today, liberty means theright to enslave another, namely the worker. By destroying thisright, we are fulfilling justice and duty, just as therevolutionaries of centuries past, whose goal it was to see thechains taken from the slave -- so that a person will berecognized for who they are, and not as property. Slavery hasdebased the soul by denying that an individual is incapable ofpassion, beyond the scope of thought and foresight. Capitalismhas debased the mind and the body; it fills us with the liesthat a corporate thief has the right to the wealth we create,and it steals from us those eight hours, those precious momentswhere we could be with a loved one, where we could be admiringthe creations of artists and musicians -- Capitalism puts us inthose brutish conditions of work, in those ceaseless hours,making us produce their wealth. "But we should have the libertyto sell and buy as we wish! It doesn't matter if 99% of theworld is relegated to misery, poverty, and want! It is ourliberty!" So the Libertarian may argue. But Libertarianism isn'tabout individual thought, but individual rights, and if thatmeans the subjection of woman to man, of african to white, oreven of worker to employer, then it will confess to suchmonstrous cruelties... It is the job of every Humanitarian tooppose the Capitalist system.
www.punkerslut.com
For Life, Punkerslut
|
|
|
|
