September 18th, 2004
|jimbojones||02:20 pm - ironic|
Laura linked me to OKCupid's new take on the old double-axis political spectrum today. It's basically the same old same old, placing you on a 2 dimensional chart with axes of economic and social liberal/conservativeness; but at the end they try to relate it to whether you'll vote for Bush or Kerry. Ho-hum, kinda, except it's particularly interesting in today's political turmoil to see what the OTHER thousands upon thousands of people who took the test came out as.
But what really struck me as ironic is that, AFTER becoming a successful independent businessman (traditionally, the very stronghold of libertarianism), I quit being a libertarian. Thanks, Gee Dubya, you've shown me so much of what can go horribly wrong with a lack of a safety blanket that I can never think the same way about politics again... even when my own successes seem to be pointing me in the directions I'd already been going.
edit for the reading comprehension challenged: Bush is not a libertarian. Bush is a fascist, by which I mean a member of the area clearly marked on that chart as "fascist". I USED to be a libertarian myself, but have ceased subscribing to that particular philosophy as a result of seeing a real need for government to act as a check-and-balance to corporate interests.
Current Mood: blackly humorous
Current Music: Don Henley - Dirty Laundry
Where do you get this bizarre notion that "cozying up to corporate interests" is a libertarian notion? Corporate welfare, favoring corporate interests over those of the individual, and granting perpetual intellectual property renewals to corporate entities runs rather counter to libertarian ethics.
You used Bush as an example of what you don't like about libertarianism, and yet his policies are less libertarian than those of Bill Clinton were. No wonder I thought of what you were saying as claiming the Bush administration's policies were somehow similar to those of libertarian political theory, don't ya think? Trying to blame Bush for your turn to socialism as though a totalitarian (yes, totalitarian — fascism is a form of authoritarianism, and most authoritarian systems are tolatitarian in paractice) somehow invalidates libertarianism is like refusing to buy an Audi because you owned a Yugo, proving that only domestic cars are any good.
Bush's economic policies are nothing like fair, and nothing like free. You've made some erroneous assumptions, and it seems like the assumptions mostly have something to do with believing Bush's rhetoric. He claims to be in favor of a free market, but his policies work toward a less-free market than Clinton's did — and that's really saying something.