Re: The Free Software Definition - Free Software Foundation

[mdj <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

On Oct 30, 12:58 pm, Alex Freed <alex_n...@mirrow.com> wrote:
> mdj wrote:
>
> >> I have also asked for an example of a libertarian dictator. So far I
> >> didn't get one.
>
> > You did. Look into Saddam Hussein & the Ba'ath Party.
>
> Clearly we have very different definitions of what constitutes a
> libertarian. Lowercase "l". A quick look at wikipedia:
>
> "Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political
> philosophies which prioritize individual liberty[2] and seek to minimize
> or even abolish the state."

No, I see no contradiction here. Indeed, the difference between theory
and practice in greater in practice than in theory: with no practical
definition of what constitutes "the state" the above definition is
meaningless. In the classical view, "state" refers to a monarchy or
theocracy or hybrid thereof; an autocratic authoritarian regime that
does what it pleases. Now in the case of Iraq, the Ba'ath Party
eventually (with a little help from JFK and the CIA to rid them of
Soviet sympathetic opposition) overthrew the old monarchy and
nationalised oil production (previously controlled by a conglomerate
of western oil companies) to set about industrialising the nation. You
will also note that the point I made was "dictators who *claim* to be
libertarian", which is why this coup was originally supported by the
US. It didn't work out too well, which just goes to show that you can
only trust peoples actions and not their rhetoric. For the same
reasons, you can't trust the people who tell you that the left are
totalitarians, here's why:

Under libertarianism, which is an ethical/moral position, the apex of
division is whether or not someone subscribes to it as a consequential
or deontological position. Which is to say, whether or not they're a
moral relativist or absolutist. In the case of the modern-day
political right, the tenets of libertarianism (and in particular the
rights to property ownership as a means to economic freedom) are taken
as absolute. As such, they tend to be opposed to leftist ideologies
like redistribution of wealth, since that would violate the absolutely
held beliefs of libertarianism, at least as they define them. This is
unfortunate for two reasons. Firstly, this tends to concentrate
wealth, and thus power, in the hands of a small few, who then using
said power lobby the government to pass legislature that benefits
them. Before long, they control an entire branch of politics through
domination of one (or even both) political parties. Even more
unfortunate is the means through which public support is maintained.
Once again, this is through moral absolutism, by appealing to another
form of it, being religion. Through this, you get your archetypical
right-wing conservative parties, and their supporters (who often earn
the title religious right) who call for dogmatic authoritarian forms
of economic liberty, and dogmatic authoritarian restrictions on
personal liberty.

Why is this bad? Because it's authoritarian. In short order, it
recreates precisely the political system that we fought to liberate
ourselves from: a pseudo-monarchial regime with theocratically
inspired desire subjugate its citizens. A considerable irony when you
realise than liberty is the antonym of authority, no?

Now, along the consequentialism fork, we have those who accept the
tenets of libertarianism up to, and *only* up to, the extent they
serve the public interest, which for the most part they do. Social
libertarians and the secular tend to cluster along this line, and at
its extreme you'll find ideologies like Libertarian Socialism and
other neo-anarchistic doctrines that contrast the anarcho-capitalism
or laissez-faire ideologies on the right side.

In reality, it's moral relativism vs. absolutism that differentiates
the left from the right, the libertarian from the authoritarian. The
wikipedia article you cite gives the original (and correct) definition
of the term:

"Libertarian"' was originally employed by late Enlightenment free-
thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to
determinism.

This is very close to what I mean when I use the term.

> Exactly my point: how can a dictator abolish the state when he *is* the
> state :)

By stepping down, obviously. A more pertinent question might be, how
can people in a democracy abolish the state when *they* are the state?
They can't of course, unless (like me) you believe they already have,
by instituting a "state" that is elected for the people, by the
people.

Matt