Displaying the ridiculousness of libertarianism

3 November, 2015 at 10:33 | Posted in Politics & Society | 1 Comment



[h/t Jan Milch]


1 Comment


    If a critique of Nozick or even Rand is to gain empirical plausibility and not just logical or persuasive validity as in the contrast with Rawls more superior argument, then there needs to be an analysis that compares capital flows in its multidimensionality, to the flow of human movements particularly in terms of labor markets but also in terms of marriage markets. A strong argument was made by anthropologists in the past two centuries that the marriage markets were the reverse of the capital markets: goods traded between people and therefore marriage matches were made although the exact marriage rules varied considerably. Now, this same argument also set up the reasoning behind wars and who may be killed and who may not be killed from the perspective of individuals as members of families/clans/tribes/moieties. The notion of political leadership being the best leader gained the most land from his enemies! This more ancient division between groups might be considered even today when battles rage and individuals make decisions concerning who they will fight and kill and who is a friendly which does seem from 3rd person perspective confusing and uncertain.

    The critique of libertarianism should not be a critique of liberty nor of unwarranted government intrusion – that would be wrong. But, a thoroughgoing critique would relate capitalism to equality and to fertility in terms of marriages and to wars in terms of enemy/friend contrasts. How can we critique capitalism and leave out of it the problem of war an the problem of fertility?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.